Is Al Mohler Responsible for the SBC's Drop in Baptisms?
I believe Dr. Al Mohler at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary may be one reason why baptisms are down in the Convention.
Baptist press outlets report that baptisms among Southern Baptists are down 4.15%. LifeWay President Thom Rainer said, "Southern Baptists should view this report as a wakeup call.”
Dr. Rainer is right. However, the first "wakeup" might need to be at Southern Seminary, Dr. Rainer's old employer. Dr. Mohler has been president of the seminary for over ten years.
Mohler has done a marvelous job in some ways. He has hired faculty that actually believe the Bible instead of paying lip service to it. I commend him for this.
Unfortunately, Mohler went outside the SBC for much of his faculty hiring, and retained several professors who adhere to the heresy that a person must be born again before placing faith in Jesus Christ. Bob Ross and I have written about this extensively on this blog. Consider the following facts.
- Dr. Tom Schreiner is a Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern who teaches the "born again before faith" heresy. Dr. Schreiner is one example, there are other professors at Southern who teach the same thing. Luckily for Mohler, Southern Baptist churches have not yet discovered that this "interpretation" of the new birth at Southern Seminary is rejected by nearly all Southern Baptist churches. It will be interesting to find out what happens once the truth gets out.
- Mark Dever, another "born again before faith" advocate, is a trustee at the Seminary. Dever is a strong promoter of the "born again before faith" heresy.
- Dr. Mohler had R. C. Sproul, a Presbyterian and chief proponent of the "born again before faith" view, to speak at Southern Seminary. Dr. Mohler had great praise for Sproul's ministry. In Sproul's study Bible, he says that "Regeneration precedes faith. Infants can be born again, although the faith that they exercise cannot be as visible as that of adults"
- Dr. Mohler preached for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) at their 1999 meeting. Most PCA pastors strongly adhere to the theology that a person is regenerated before placing faith in Jesus.
- Extreme/hybrid/hyper Calvinism as typified by the "born again before faith in Christ" theology taught at Southern Seminary, produces small, dead churches. Bob Ross has written extensively about this.
Dr. Mohler is the man responsible for what is being taught at Southern Seminary. As president, he had to put his stamp of approval on faculty hiring. In some cases, he and his staff recruited extreme Calvinists from outside the Southern Baptist Convention. These men were not Southern Baptists but became one in order to get a job.
The Southern Baptist Convention is now bearing the fruits of Dr. Mohler's tenure. His professors have been turning out "preacher boys" for several years now. Following the lead of Dr. Mohler himself, these "preacher boys" are good at blogging but not so good at building Southern Baptist churches. (A prime example is Timmy Brister, a SBTS student and United Parcel Service employee who blogs about Calvinism and Reformed theology almost every day but rarely about his preaching and witnessing activities. The SBTS has so many student bloggers it even allowed Timmy to sponsor his very own blog conference).
For verification, visit the blogs of Mohler's graduates. They are skilled at arguing the ordo salutis but have trouble baptizing more than a few a year. They are concerned about church discipline but cannot discipline themselves to use the Word of Life to bring faith to sinners in order that they might believe and be saved! They go on mission trips for the "glory of God," a la John Piper, and have little or no results when they get back. They trash Southern Baptist presidents who have large churches such as Bobby Welch and Jack Graham but praise "Dr." James White, a Reformed Baptist who preaches for Hardshell Baptists.
In my opinion, Mohler's tenure has been a disaster for the Convention. He is praised for turning the seminary from liberalism to a more conservative theology, but it takes no real skill to hire professors who believe the Bible. What is needed at Southern is a president who hires professors that believe the Bible, are right on the theology of the new birth, and know how to grow churches.
Dr. Mohler's seminary is churning out Blogging Calvinists and Reforming Calvinists but where are the church growing Southern Baptists? For the answer to why baptisms are down, Southern Baptists need to examine Southern Seminary and Dr. Al Mohler.
Charles
(To email a copy of this article to a pastor or friend, click on the envelope icon at the end of this article).
posted by Charles @ 12:45 PM
106 Comments:
Guys, you have outdone yourselves on this one. Just when I think your ignorance of theology, the SBC, and Reformed theology couldn't get any bigger, you say something like this:
"In my opinion, Mohler's tenure has been a disaster for the Convention. He is praised for turning the seminary from liberalism to a more conservative theology, but it takes no real skill to hire professors who believe the Bible. What is needed at Southern is a president who hires professors that believe the Bible, are right on the theology of the new birth, and know how to grow churches. Dr. Mohler's seminary is churning out Blogging Calvinists and Reforming Calvinists but where are the church growing Southern Baptists? For the answer to why baptisms are down, Southern Baptists need to examine Southern Seminary and Dr. Al Mohler."
I would love to hear what Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, and others who helped install Mohler as President would say about this! Without Mohler's leadership there would have been no way Southern could have been resurrected from the pit it was in. But I guess "anyone" could have done it, huh? I guess they should have picked you guys for the job. The SBC would be better off then. Right? Wow! Just when I think I've read it all!
"Is Al Mohler Responsible for the SBC's Drop in Baptisms?"
I don't have to read anything but this absurd question.
The decline has nothing to do with man. I would think maybe it has everything to do with God. I also believe it could have everything to do with God's disapprove of the God ol Boy's club of the SBC and the majority of leadership who preach and teach contrary to the Word. We have not seen many baptism in my typical SBC Church in the years I have been a member and I can say it is because our pastor doesn't do much with the Word other than read it then tell stories and joke etc. to tickle the ears kinda like Joel Osteen.
I must say I think we should be thankful for the decline to avoid false professions that church leadership will give an account for.
Bobby and Charlie,
You guys are so off the mark it is pathetically ridiculous. The anonymous Charlie cannot even tell us who he really is, lest we compare his life with those he so ardently criticizes. If a man like Al Mohler could pastor every church in America, our churches would be stronger, more Bible-centered, MORE evangelistic, and Larry King could finally invite someone else to battle homosexuality on his show.
Let me tell you this - the man-centered decline in our beloved SBC did not begin when Al Mohler became president at Southern. "In 1950 Southern Baptists recorded one baptism for every 19 church members. Today the ratio of baptisms to total membership is 1:44" link here
What does Paige Patterson think about the decline?:
Paige Patterson, a former SBC president and a co-founder of the conservative resurgence, said he believes the figures would be worse if there had not been a conservative movement. But he added the numbers are likely even more anemic than they appear, because there is no way of knowing how many are rebaptisms of people who already are in church and that many churches are baptizing children at younger and younger ages to the point that "Many of us are guilty of the infant baptism we used to criticize everybody else for." (Hmmm I wonder what in the world Mark Dever is concerned about, Bobby?)
Read the article at the link I provided, and you'll see that the SBC's baptism rate is essentially the same since the 1950's, despite a growing population base and the addition of hundreds more churches. This is what we get after decades of the Finneyist, emotion-driven, church-growth guru approach to how we "do church."
How's the view from the cheap seats, Charlie? Does holding binoculars slow down your blogging?
-Michael
Atlanta
STILL WAITING ON SCOTT
Scott said...
Charles and Bob,
This article proves very clearly how you " Clowns" have no understanding of Jonah 2:9 " Salvation is of the Lord" or John 6:44, Eph 2:8-9.
Scott, you say the SBC is full of "uregenerate church members," but you have not told us how you managed to get "regenerated" and how it happened. How did you wind up in an "unregenerate" denomination?
Surely, you must know when you got "regenerated," and under what circumstances. Maybe we could learn a little about the subject from your experience.
And why are you playing "footsies" with the Hardshell Baptists who don't believe in evangelism to the unregenerate? -- Bob L. Ross
-- Bob L. Ross
anonymous/Michael, Hello!
You wrote, If a man like Al Mohler could pastor every church in America, our churches would be stronger, more Bible-centered, MORE evangelistic,
Why don't we find out? Can you name a church Dr. Mohler pastored before he became president of Southern Seminary? Just one?
He runs a good blog, though, doesn't he!
Charles
WHAT ABOUT THE HYBRIDS?
Scott said...
Charles and Bob,
Patterson should have never been seminary President because he is a Liar! Yes, Liar! He signed the abstract of Principles each year yet he does not even believe in the Abstracts definition of Election.
If that rules out Patterson, then at least some of the Southern Faculty members are in the same boat in the light of the articles on "Regeneration" and "Faith," for these articles clearly include faith in the Spirit's work of regeneration -- "enlightening their minds spiritually and SAVINGLY TO UNDERSTAND THE WORD OF GOD," and "SAVING FAITH IS BELIEF," etc.
This shows that regeneration is viewed as being the CREATION of faith along with the other "graces" associated with faith.
The "born again before faith" heresy has "regeneration" a COMPLETE work BEFORE "SAVING FAITH" is experienced.
There goes Thomas Schreiner and Tom Nettles, and perhaps others, for they signed the AoP and didn't believe it on regeneration. -- Bob L. Ross
MOHLER -- "ONE OF THE REASONS" etc.
Charles wrote:
I believe Dr. Al Mohler at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary may be one reason why baptisms are down in the Convention.
Charles, in the light of the items you mention, I hardly see how anyone could dispute your conclusion.
Before Mohler, however, I want to point out the influence of the pedo-regenerationists.
Iain Murray, for instance, influenced the founder of the Founders, Ernest Reisinger, and they both promoted Berkhof's theology, the veritable fountainhead of most of the current "regeneration precedes faith" heresy.
Reisinger made the Founders an avant-garde group to promote the Hybrid Calvinism of Berkhof and Murray under the guise of its being Creedal Calvinism, adorning it by the misuse of names such as Spurgeon, Dagg, Carroll, Boyce, and others. I have documented the views of these men on the Flyswatter and none of them supports the idea that sinners are "born again before faith."
Murray attacked the "invitation system" of Southern Baptists and spawned a whole agenda of anti-invitationalism, which was adopted by Reisinger and the Founders. This within itself discouraged the "general call" to the lost to accept and confess Christ.
I published a long series of articles several months ago, replying to every single erroneous argument used against invitations.
The lack of public invitations has little effect upon pedo-egenerationists such as Murray, for the pedos get the vast majority of their members by means of infant baptism. They would seldom ever get a member by use of the inivitation, even if they used it. Their members are the infants they baptize, plus a few proselytes. They seldom ever have a profession of faith by a lost sinner.
It does hurt Baptists, however, for addition to our church membership depends upon lost sinners hearing the Gospel, being convicted of sin, led to believe on Christ as the Spirit blesses, and then openly confessing Him before men and being baptized.
It's true what you say about Mohler's being one reason, and I think it also true that the influence of the pedo-regenerationists such as Berkhof and Murray has contribued to the decline among Southern Baptists. -- Bob L. Ross
SCOTT, WHY DON'T YOU FACE THE MUSIC ABOUT BEING SAVED?
Scott said...
Charles and Bob,
This article proves very clearly how you " Clowns" have no understanding of Jonah 2:9 " Salvation is of the Lord" or John 6:44, Eph 2:8-9.
Scott, why don't you stop beating around the bush and fess up to the facts of your Christian life?
If I am not badly mistaken, you believed on Christ and professed faith during a public invitation, under what you would now say was "Arminianism."
Then, sometime later on, you began to learn some of the theoretical views called "Calvinism," and from there on you began to depart from you "first love" -- which was salvation by simple faith in Christ -- and you became a flaming evangelist -- not for lost souls --but for "Calvinism."
Now you have gone so far into the mire that you are actually fellowshipping with Hardshell Baptists who don't believe a thing like Creedal Calvinism, and can't even tell you if they are saved or not. The have a "hope" that somewhere back there they were "regenerated," but they don't really know.
Why don't you hark back to HOW YOU WERE SAVED, Scott, and stop all of this pedobaptist/Hardshell hokey-pokey about getting "regenerated" before you ever believed on the Lord?
You see how Spurgeon got saved, don't you? It was by hearing the Gospel and looking to Jesus. You needn't be ashamed that it was under "Arminianism," for Spurgeon got saved under the same, and he wasn't ashamed. He rejoiced.
Why don't you wake up and come to your senses? -- Bob L. Ross
Bob Ross wrote, Iain Murray, for instance, influenced the founder of the Founders, Ernest Reisinger, and they both promoted Berkhof's theology, the veritable fountainhead of most of the current "regeneration precedes faith" heresy.
Reisinger made the Founders an avant-garde group to promote the Hybrid Calvinism of Berkhof and Murray
Yes, the Founders are much to blame also.
Charles
INGRATITUDE ON PARADE
Scott said...
Charles and Bob,
I wish Al Mohler could over see all the seminaries and kick out Paige Patterson!
Bob to Charles:
Charles, if it had not been for Paige Patterson working so hard in behalf of the conservative resurgence in the SBC, Al Mohler would probably still be doing assistant editorial work in Georgia.
That is where he was when I first became acquainted with him in the summer of 1992 when he phoned me from Georgia. I never knew he existed, but he phoned and wanted to swap us some advertising in the "Preaching" magazine for Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. He was the "Associate Editor" and the magazine had a modest sized readership.
Mohler owes his current job in part to Paige Patterson, and now Scott Morgan is so ungrateful that he wants Patterson booted out! . . . Just because Patterson does not crack his skull to Founders' Hybrid Calvinism!
That is some "gratitude," don't you think, Charles? Scott claims to believe in "sovereignty," but he does not believe it enough to appreciate how it was the sovereignty of God that used Paige Patterson to help restore conservative leadership to the SBC.
If it weren't for Paige,
Scott himself might not even have a pastorate!
-- Bob L. Ross
JAME WHITE . . . CONVERTED?
Charles, I am wondering if perhaps James White has moved in the direction of Creedal Calvinism as a result of the 'heat" which has recently been brought to bear?
Of course, we are aware that James is a master at playing "both sides of the fence," so this just may be a case of his vacillating talents, such as in the John MacArthur ordeal on Sonship.
At any rate, in his book on The Potter's Freedom, James clearly has "spiritual birth preceding all actions of the spiritual life" (page 286) -- in other words, "born again before faith," -- that is, before being taught, hearing, learning, and coming to Christ.
But on his website today he seems to be chirping a different tune. Note what he says in an item on John 6:45, in an effort to reply to Norman Geisler:
>>
Let's look at 6:45 again:
It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be TAUGHT by God.' Everyone who has HEARD and LEARNED from the Father COMES to me-- [my emphasis, BLR] --
First, who is "they"? The "all" is all of "them," whoever they are. Context tells us: the preceding verse speaks of the one who is drawn by the Father and who, as a result of being drawn, comes to the Son (and is raised up by Him). The being "taught by God" is not some general revelation, some peanut-butter activity that is devoid of connection with the preceding context. No, this is a restatement, an expansion, explanation, of what it means for the Father to "draw." The drawing of the Father leads those drawn to the Son. Why? Well, part of it has to do with imparting knowledge, teaching. God does the teaching. And just as the drawing of the Father brings all who are drawn to the Son (and hence to eternal life), so too He never fails in imparting the knowledge that LEADS TO LIFE [Emphasis mine, BLR].
BOB'S COMMENT:
Now, James can't have it "both ways," Charles; they either have "spiritual birth" -- as he alleged in The Potter's Freedom-- BEFORE "all actions of the spiritual life," or they have it like he says in his article today -- all who are drawn to the Son (and hence to eternal life), so too He never fails in imparting the knowledge that LEADS TO LIFE.
Here, you see, he has "LIFE" following as the result of the drawing, the teaching, the hearing, and the learning ("knowledge"). He has men coming "to the Son" (Who is Life) AFTER they have been drawn, taught, and have learned.
What do you think? Is James merely double-speaking again, or has he learned something from our efforts to instruct him in Creedal Calvinism on the new birth? -- Bob L. Ross
ADDENDUM to "Is Al Mohler Responsible for the SBC's Drop in Baptisms?"
On June 24, 2005, Dr. Mohler preached at the First Presbyterian Church in Chattanooga, TN during a "Westminster Conference." Dr. Mohler seems to have become a favorite speaker at Presbyterian conferences and miniseries. With the "born again before faith" theology taught at Southern, he is probably somewhat of a "hero" to conservative Presbyterians.
I was unable to find out if infant baptism was performed during the service in which Dr. Mohler preached.
Charles
MOHLER AND PRESBYTERIANS
Charles said...
On June 24, 2005, Dr. Mohler preached at the First Presbyterian Church in Chattanooga, TN during a "Westminster Conference." Dr. Mohler seems to have become a favorite speaker at Presbyterian conferences and miniseries. With the "born again before faith" theology taught at Southern, he is probably somewhat of a "hero" to the Presbyterians.
Remember, Charles, this is the same Mohler who is so concerned about the "gospel" of Joel Osteen that he writes blogs about it, yet here he is, by his participation in this Conference, embellishing Presbyterianism which holds to the phantasmagoria of "infant regeneration," yet Mohler never expresses a word of concern about that "gospel."
Osteen, at the close of every sermon, at least calls on sinners to repent, believe, and accept Christ as Lord, and get into a Bible-believing church. On the other hand, the Presbyterians baptize babies and put them on the church roll, contrary to everything Baptists believe about salvation, baptism, and church membership! -- Bob L. Ross
REMINDER TO SCOTT MORGAN
Dear Scott
Charles and I are still waiting to hear your testimony about where and how you were saved -- whether you got "regenerated" fooling around with the George Hardshells, or under "Arminian" preaching?
Most all of the Founders I now got saved under "Arminian" preaching (like C. H. Spurgeon) and they "walked the aisles" during a public invitation to confess faith in Christ. Are you an exception to the way most of the Founders were saved? -- Bob L. Ross
personally much of this is personal views that should be shared between Charles and Bob via the phone because most truly aren't interested what they think and their twisting and slanderous talk. They are like two gossips in the locker room with nothing else to do with their lives. I think scripture speaks clearly about people like them and if I were one of them I'd go to my knees....
For Charles, not Bob, unless they are the same person.
"The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree."
I am a very good friend of Patrick Schreiner. In fact, I am his pastor here in Kentucky. Patrick is also Dr. Tom Schreiner's son.
I have rarely seen a more evangelistic young man in my life. He is actively involved in Campus Crusade for Christ and regularly takes the gospel door-to-door on the campus of Western Kenucky University. In fact, people who want to learn evangelism call him and ask him to take them with him when he shares the gospel.
He is going to spend the summer doing missions in Papua, New Guinea, specifically aiding a young family that has been laboring in a place where Christ has rarely been named.
How did Patrick get to be the way he is? I believe it is, in part, due to the teaching and example of his father, Tom Schreiner.
As for our church. We average about 100 in worship on Sunday mornings. Next sunday we will have a commissioning service for 7 members/missionaries who will go to Slovakia, to Mississippi, to North Dakota, and of course New Guinea.
Our church has had several professors from Southern preach at our church, Ware, Schreiner, Moore, and York, and amazingly we are still preaching the gospel.
Do you have a quote from Dever, Mohler, or Schreiner saying that they there is no need to share the gospel? If so, let's see it.
I know these men and I have heard them specifically call and challenge ministers to take the gospel world-wide.
Charles, I don't read your blog everyday, but how many posts have you dedicated to sharing examples of your personal soul-winning? I may have missed them, but I don't remember reading very many.
I'm thankful if you are sharing your faith, it would be the height of hypocrisy if you didn't share your faith because you were too busy blogging about people who don't share their faith because they are too busy blogging.
Perhaps you could share your evangelistic efforts on a weekly basis. What kind of evangelistic program is your church using? And what is the name and location of your church, so we can learn from them?
This would all be helpful.
God Bless!
Hashman
REVIVALS AND PEDO-REGENERATION
Bob to Charles
Charles, you may have noticed that many of the "revivals," whether of the Calvinist or Arminian variety, have been a consequence of the pedo-regeneration deception.
When one considers who the persons were in these revivals who were professing salvation, it is seen that they primarily were people who had been baptized in infancy, presumably as a "sign and seal" of regeneration in infancy.
The Wesleyan revival in England had to do primarily with pedobaptists who had been baptized as infants in the Church of England (Episcopalian or Anglican).
The Great Awakening in America was also primarily among those who practiced infant baptism. Both Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield were from pedobaptist backgrounds.
The heralded Cane Ridge Revival in central Kentucky was primarily among the Presbyterians, among them Barton W. Stone, one of the early laders of the Campbellite "Christian Church."
The same was true of the revivals under Charles G. Finney in America and D. L. Moody in England and Scotland. Finney directed his message primarily to the Presbyerians and many of them professed faith under his preaching.
Moody had such a harvest among pedobaptists in Britain
that a Scot Presbyerian opponent, John Kennedy, said, "I look on my Church, in a spasmodic state, subject to convulsions, which only indicate that her life is departing, the result of revivals got up by men." Kennedy said hundreds of pedo ministers were cooperating with Moody in the meetings.
These are just some of the "revivals" that developed as a result of people being awakened from the deception about their supposed "regeneration" in infancy. From time to time, in certain areas, the deceived pedos began to realize they were not saved in infancy, and as a result many got saved, and revival broke out. -- Bob L. Ross
Brother Kevin Hash (Hashman) posted the following and I have reposted it exactly as he did with the exception that I deleted the names of the missionaries, for obvious reasons.
The italics are Brother Hash quoting me. Brother Hash is another of Mohler's "Blogging Calvinists" and he just returned from Dr. Mohler's "Together for the Gospel" seminar where he got to fellowship with Presbyterians and "Sovereign Grace" Baptists. I'm not making this up. Read it for yourself.
Apparently Mohler's conference did not teach Brother Hash basic principles of reasoning. Quoting names of missionaries from John Piper's church proves nothing.
Brother Hash: Read what I wrote and then read your response. You have proved my point.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>
Hashman said...
They go on mission trips for the "glory of God," a la John Piper, and have little or no results when they get back.
It must be nice to be able to make comments like the above anonymously, so that you will not have to give an account to fellow Christians. But I believe you will be held to account for your mocking of people who risk their lives to share the gospel and for your mocking "the Glory of God."
Do you know that those who have gone on mission through Bethlehem Baptist church has seen little or no results . I know of two dear ladies, who surved as nurses and missionaries in Africa, from Bethlehem that died when their car was blown off the road down a cliff, leading to their deaths. I was in class at seminary when my professor announced their deaths. One of which was his aunt.
Theological differences aside. Shame on you, you are going way over the line. I call on you to apologize for this specific quote and to apologize for bearing false witness as you do not know what kind of fruit was born on these mission trips.
I suggest that you pull this post rather than leaving it up as a record of your lack of love for the brethren and contempt for people who give their lives for the Great Commission.
Below is a partial list of missionaries going out from Piper's church that are, in your words, "seeing little or no results"
Kevin B. Hash
names omitted -- Kazakstan
names omitted -- Wycliffe Bible Translators, Cameroon
names omitted -- Campus Crusade for Christ, Hungary
name omitted -- Wycliffe Bible Translators, Democratic Republic of Congo
names omitted -- Wycliffe Bible Translators, Papua New Guinea
names omitted -- Baptist General Conference, Thailand
names omitted -- Baptist General Conference, Philippines
names omitted -- SIM International, Senegal
names omitted -- Baptist General Conference, Japan
names omitted -- Operation Mobilization, Albania
names omitted -- BGC, Ethiopia
names omitted -- Thailand
names omitted --Thailand
name omitted -- Tecate Mission, Mexico (California)
names omitted -- Wycliffe Bible Translators, Minnesota
names omitted -- SIM International, Guinea
name omitted -- Campus Outreach, Thailand
names omitted -- Wycliffe Bible Translators, Florida
names omitted -- Campus Crusade for Christ, Germany
name omitted -- Food for the Hungry, Peru
name omitted -- SIM, Bolivia
names omitted -- HCJB, Ecuador
name omitted -- BGC, Brazil
names omitted -- SIM International, Senegal
names omitted -- TEAM, Czech Republic
names omitted -- M:MM, MN
names omitted -- SEND International, Japan
names omitted -- Hope Bible Mission, Guatemala
names omitted -- SEND International, Alaska
names omitted -- RCEI, Austria
names omitted -- Baptist General Conference/International Mission Roard, Kenya
names omitted -- SIM, Senegal
names omitted - Baptist General Conference, Cameroon
names omitted -- Baptist General Conference, Japan
*Several Bethlehem missionary families are not listed here due to security concerns.
WHAT IS PATRICK PREACHING?
Hashman said...
For Charles, not Bob, unless they are the same person. . . .
I am a very good friend of Patrick Schreiner. In fact, I am his pastor here in Kentucky. Patrick is also Dr. Tom Schreiner's son.
I have rarely seen a more evangelistic young man in my life.
BOB TO THE HASH MAN:
As for the "same person" thing -- Charles and I are trying to make that the Greatest Best Kept Secret on the Internet.
As for young Schreiner, I often have young men come by both my house and my store propagating their version of the Gospel. They are very evangelistic. Some of them ride bikes, some drive cars, some walk. In the Providence of God, I am blessed with the opportunity to present the Gospel to them, perhaps for the first time in their lives. I want them to read John 3:18 and believe on the Son for salvation. I try to avoid arguing with them . . . just want to keep their eyes on John 3:18 . . . etc.
As for Patrick, what kind of Gospel is he presenting? Is it the Gospel as in the book of John (20:31; 3:14-18), or the Gospel according to the book of Berkhof or James White? -- Bob L. Ross
KEVIN HASH SAID on his blogsite:
(Presbyterian, Sovereign Grace,
SBC, etc) It was a very fruitful and much needed sojourn for me as a pastor. I was not only encouraged by the messages by my heros in the faith such as R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and John Piper (among others), but also by the number of young ministers passionate for the gospel and for Christ's church.
BOB TO HASH MAN:
"Together for the Gospel," was it?
What Gospel?
The one that says that babies get "regenerated" in infancy and are to be baptized and enrolled in the church -- such as held by Sproul and Ligon Duncan?
What Gospel? The one that says that the elect get "regenerated before" amd therefore without "believing in Christ"?
Getting together is one thing . . . but the Gospel is another.
If Dr. R. Albert Mohler is getting together to play footsies with the likes of pedo-regenerationists and Hardshell Lasserre Bradley, Jr., I don't know that any true Gospel is involved in that togetherness. -- Bob L. Ross
BTW.
The names of the missionaries are public and you can find them at www.bbcmpls.org under the link to Missions and then Foreign Mission staff.
I'd like an answer to my earlier request. Your larger point seems to be that you believe that blogging and evangelism are almost always mutually exclusive. So I must assume that you are an exception to the rule and are blogging as well as doing much evangelism, if not you are quite the hypocrite.
Here's my request again.
Perhaps you could share your evangelistic efforts on a weekly basis. What kind of evangelistic program is your church using? And what is the name and location of your church, so we can learn from them?
Charles,
What happened to my rather lengthy comment about Lemke's SBC paper and how you can't prove your position? Are you moderating comments to prevent ones from being on here that you can't answer? I will post it again if necessary.
In a nut shell.
Patrick tells lost people that God is holy, that man in sinful, that a holy God must punish sin, that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners like us and that in order to get connected to the redemptive benefits accomplish by Christ's death on the cross, we must repent and believe.
Unless you disagree with this, Patrick deserves praise not your cynicism. I guess that's how you and I are different. If I hear about a faithful young man going door to door here and going to the tribes of New Guinea, I say "AMEN!"
wisdomofthepages.com said...
For the record concerning Mr. Brister... You have sinned the sin of slander against a very fine young Christian man who will certainly be used by God to bring many souls into the kingdom of God.
Bob's Comment:
If Timmy defends the "born again before faith" gospel, he is not going to bring any souls into the kingdom of God with that "gospel."
He may make some proselytes to Hybrid Calvinism, but he is not going to win souls to the Lord. -- Bob Ross
Mr. Ross - you give yourself and man to much credit. We are to proclaim the Gospel but the only one who "brings any soul into the kingdom of God" is God alone!
Mr. Brister preach on and may Bob and Charles learn that the Gospel and its Truth doesn't get it's interpretation from them but the one who Wrote It! May we who are True Believers stand firm against those who cry falsehoods against us.
Bob and Charles make it clear that anyone who doesn't interpret scripture to their liking aren't Christian. They say this over and over in some fashion or another but the truth is those who slander us are not for us but against us and we must stand!
EVANGELISTIC EFFORTS
Hashman said...
Here's my request again.
Perhaps you could share your evangelistic efforts on a weekly basis. What kind of evangelistic program is your church using? And what is the name and location of your church, so we can learn from them?
What are you fishing for, a bragging contest? No amount of statistics is going to satisfy you or any other Hybrid. Any evangelism other than by a Hybrid is going to be branded "Arminian," and dismissed -- depsite the fact most Hybrids say they got saved under "Arminian" evangelism.
I have seen how some of the Hybrids like to criticize Bobby Welch [as per Gene Bridges], despite Welch's strong evangelistic efforts.
Founders' member Scott Morgan wants Paige Patterson kicked out at Southwestern, although during Southwestern's recent Spring Evangelism Praticum week, Faculty and Southwestern students were reported in the Southern Baptist Texan magazine of April 17, page 10 as "sharing the gospel with nearly 1,000 people," over 800 "one-on-one," and had 118 professions faith, with over 500 evangelistic sermons preached during the week.
How many professions were recorded at the "Together for the Gospel" meeting? -- Bob L. Ross
PATRICK AND PRAISE
Hashman said...
Unless you disagree with this, Patrick deserves praise not your cynicism.
If Patrick agrees with his Dad on "born again before faith," I could not agree with his "gospel," if he is teaching that, nor praise him for that message.
I admire anyone who is dedicated to the point of seeking to propagate his faith, despite the fact I may disagree with them. I admire the Mormon missionaries who put in part of their lives to propagate Mormonism, but I surely do not agree with what they are propagating. -- Bob Ross
Bob asked if I were fishing for a bragging contest on witnessing.
No I'm fishing for put up or shut up on the issue. Charles continually makes allusions to that fact that certain people should start sharing their faith more rather than bloggering all the time.
I think the point of the request is fairly obvious from the two times that I have made the request.
As for Patrick, I told you exactly what he preaches and his father would "Amen" what he is preaching. AS should we all.
It's unfortunate that you insist on dismissing this young man's efforts by lumping him in wtih Mormon's. Even after I told you what he is preaching.
You seem to be making a lot of assumption about me. I did not know that I was a hybrid, I thought I just ran on gas.
Brother D.R., Hello!
You wrote,
Charles,
What happened to my rather lengthy comment about Lemke's SBC paper and how you can't prove your position? Are you moderating comments to prevent ones from being on here that you can't answer? I will post it again if necessary.
I have not referenced Dr. Lemke in this blog.
I have not deleted anything from you or anyone else who had something relevant to say. The briefest look at the comments would tell you that in an instant.
If you post here, you will need to stay ON TOPIC. "Rather lengthy" comments are usually not on topic.
If your comment is more than a few paragraphs long I suggest you post it on your own blog and then provide a link here.
Charles
I said,
Following the lead of Dr. Mohler himself, these "preacher boys" are good at blogging but not so good at building Southern Baptist churches.
Dr. Mohler's seminary is churning out Blogging Calvinists and Reforming Calvinists but where are the church growing Southern Baptists?
I offer three more "Blogging Calvinists" for proof.
One is Kevin Hash. Brother Kevin attended the "Together for the (born again before faith) Gospel" conference where he was happy to fellowship with Presbyterians and "Sovereign Grace" Baptists.
Number two is Scott Lamb, pastor of a "Reformed Baptist Church" in St. Louis. Brother Scott loves studying "the arts" and is excited about Southern Seminary's new "study center for the arts." (I'm not making this up.)
Number three is Daniel Randle. Brother Daniel's blog is named "Christ and Culture" (I'm sure Dr. Mohler would be proud).
Visit these blogs and you'll see the proof is in the pudding!
Charles
HYBRID OR NO?
Hashman said...
You seem to be making a lot of assumption about me. I did not know that I was a hybrid, I thought I just ran on gas.
If you defend the pedo-regenerationist doctrine of "born again before faith," then you are Hybrid -- a mix of the Westminster Confession on the efficient power of the Spirit and the Hardshell view of "regeneration without faith."
Those Presbyterians you were fellowshipping with are disciples of the Berkhof view of "born again before faith." Do you agree with them? If so, you are a Hybrid Calvinist, not a Creedal Calvinist. -- Bob L. Ross
IGNORANCE OFFERS OPPORTUNITY
Anonymous said...
Bob and Charles make it clear that anyone who doesn't interpret scripture to their liking aren't Christian. They say this over and over in some fashion or another but the truth is those who slander us are not for us but against us and we must stand!
BOB'S REPLY:
It is always good to have a representative of the "Ignorance Camp" to afford us the opportunity to clarify a few things.
Charles and I believe that any one who has trusted Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is born again, regardless of his theological and ecclesiastical identity.
I have even made such statements in debates with Campbellites, with whom I seriously differ on the purpose of baptism.
A great and key passage on salvation is John 3:18, and it does not add any conditions such as agreement on the interpretation of either Scripture or theology. -- Bob L. Ross
NO HUMAN EFFORT
wisdomofthepages.com said...
For the record, Biblically speaking, nobody is brought into the kingdom of God through human effort - read John 1 and John 3 - this is extremely clear.
We have been extensively posting the view of Creedal Calvinism -- whether one agrees with it or not -- that faith is born (1 John 5:4) by the power of the Holy Spirit through use of the Gospel or Word of God as His means, thereby bringing spiritual life to the dead sinner whose Spirit-born faith has put him into Christ. This faith is therefore the "gift of God," and it is not born of human effort. I assume you have not been reading our posts.
We have been refuting the non-Creedal view that sinners are "born again before faith," and therefore before they are "in Christ" by faith. This is Hardshell doctrine, and we also call it "Hybrid Calvinism" for it is an abberant view of the new birth.
It is taught by the pedo-regenerationists such as Berkhof, Shedd, and Sproul, who believe that infants are "regenerated" or "born again" without the Word of God as a means and without faith, and the unbelieving infants are enrollsed in the church as members, and assumed to be "born again" Christians, despite having no faith in Christ.
They likewise teach that adults are "regenerated" without the use of the Word, and are "born again before faith." This is non-creedal Hybrid Calvinism. -- Bob L. Ross
I think it is amusing that I have been called a blogging calvinist.
If you check out my blog archives you will not find any propogation of calvinism what-so-ever. I'm embarrassed for you, that you have so wrongly labeled me. People who click from your site to mine will be disappointed to find no posts about calvinism.
I don't think I have even stated that I am a calvinist on my blog or any blog. I have been at my church for 4 years and have not mentioned predestination from the pulpit on ANY sunday morning.
On my blog, you will find pictures of my babies, events at my church, links to other things of interest, cultural happenings, politics and the like.
Even in the one post about the T4TG conference there is no mention of anything calvinistic.
In fact calvinism was not even a predominant theme of the conference, neither was "born again before faith". I don't think anyone talks about born again before faith more than you guys.
Thank you for the title, BLOGGING CALVINIST but it is definitely undeserved.
Brother Hash said, "If you check out my blog archives you will not find any propogation of calvinism what-so-ever. I'm embarrassed for you, that you have so wrongly labeled me."
So you REJECT Reformed theology and Calvinism?
Charles
LUTHER'S SALVATION BY FAITH
vs the "BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH"
HERESY
Bob to Charles:
Charles, I think we may have some "johnny-come-latelys" making some comments, as they seem oblivious to the primary subjects with which we have been concerned on this blog.
We have been dealing primarily with the heresy taught by the pedo-regenerationists and their disciples that "regeneration precedes faith," which means the sinner is "born again before faith."
Rather than repeat earlier materials, I suggest they do some back-reading to become more familiar with what has been the focus of this blogsite.
Now for a very pertinent item which relates to the theme we have been covering:
On Phil Johnson's "Pyromaniacs" blogsite, Phil has reproduced a significant item by C. H. Spurgeon from one of our "Sword and Trowel" collections of Spurgeon's writings in his monthly magazine. This article by Spurgeon is excerpted by Phil from the 1874 volume, original pages 5-7, and relates the conversion of Martin Luther.
Shedd and Berkhof, the two pedo-regenerationist theologians, admit to differing from Luther's view on regeneration, and it is obvious that Luther's own salvation experience contradicts the theory of "born again before faith." Luther was saved by or through faith, as the Bible teaches, as the Spirit of God applied the WORD of God to his heart and soul. Luther knew nothing about a "regeneration" before and without faith, as taught by Shedd and Berkhof and their modern disciples.
I am excerpting the significant statements from the article, but you may read the entire excerpt on the "Pyromaniacs" blogsite:
C. H. Spurgeon is relating the account and he quotes a historian:
>>
[A] historian of the Reformation thus describes the sudden enlightenment of Luther's mind:--
>
But while he [Luther] was engaged in this meritorious act, he thought he beard a voice of thunder which cried at the bottom of his heart, as at Wittenberg and Bologna, 'The just shall live by faith.'
These words, which had already on two different occasions struck him like the voice of an angel of God, resounded loudly and incessantly within him. . . . It proved a creating word both for the Reformer and for the Reformation. It was by it that God then said, 'Let light be, and light was.' It is often necessary that a truth, in order to produce its due effect on the mind, should be repeatedly presented to it.
. . . .This is the decisive period in the internal life of Luther.
The faith which saved him from the terrors of death became the soul of his theology, his fortress in all dangers, the stamina of his discourse, the stimulant of his love, the foundation of his peace, the spur of his labors, his consolation in life and in death.
But this great doctrine of a salvation which emanates from God and not from man, was not only the power of God to save the soul of Luther, it also became the power of God to reform the Church; a powerful weapon which the apostles wielded, a weapon too long neglected, but at length brought forth in its primitive luster from the arsenal of the mighty God. . . .
Here we must let Luther speak for himself. . . . But when, by the Spirit of God, I comprehended these words; when I learned how the sinner's justification proceeds from the pure mercy of the Lord by means of faith, then I felt myself revived like a new man, and entered at open doors into the very paradise of God.
. . . I went over all the Bible, and collected a great number of passages which taught me what the work of God was.
>
[Spurgeon continues his remarks:]
As the Scala Santa thus became the place of salvation to the great reformer, so may our reference to them be made serviceable to those of our readers who have not yet found peace with God. . . . The gospeldoes not promise eternal life to good works, or prayers, or tears, or horrible feelings; its one great utterance is, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
May the Holy Spirit with divine power force upon every self-righteous mind the conviction of its own ruin, and of the hopelessness of its own efforts, and so may the soulbecome willing to accept eternal life as the gift of God by Jesus Christ.
>>
Notice, Charles, in this born again experience of Martin Luther the MEANS used was the Word of God, applied in power by the Holy Spirit, and thus faith was born (1 John 5:4).
It was not a "direct operation" upon the soul apart from faith, as taught by Shedd, Berkhof, James White, Sproul, Scott Morgan, Hardshells and other "born again before faith" advocates. It was the "birthing" of faith in Luther by the Word and Spirit, just as taught in our Baptist Confessions of Faith.
-- Bob L. Ross
Some Thoughts -
Baptism down because of Al Mohler and Southern Seminary -- that is so funny because he was the choice of the 'good old boys club' of the SBC at the time after they ran off the other President -- and now Dr. Mohler carries the weight of not producing a million baptism in a year. Amazing how if you don't play the game the way you are told then the count down begins - Oh, how God works, man things he determines his ways but God always has the upper hand of what he has planned and always brings it to pass even if he didn't get Charles/Bobs opinion on the matter.
Maybe you guys need to take the issue up with Paige Patterson etc./ To late for Dr. Rogers but both were the ones that picked him.
I see God's wisdom and God's laughter all over this -- they thought we have our boy when all along he was God's and is doing his bidding wonderfully.
"You must be born again" -- Funny how Jesus was ask about this very thing and he never said a word about you must place your faith in me to be born again, he only said "You must be born again".
"large church such as" "dead churches" -- When were numbers made equal to reality of true conversions? Doesn't scripture teach the way is narrow and few .... SBC has many many dead man centered none gospel churches. Unless God build the house the labor is in vain.
I like to think that I am not defined in any way by calvinism. I am a Christian, who is a pastor in a Southern Baptist church.
I rarely, if ever, have called myself a calvinist. I have been known to discourage people, especially young people, of calling themselves calvinists.
The church I pastor does not consider me a calvinist. That would be a surprize to most of them.
More accurately, I am a biblicist. Some would say that I am calvinistic, those who insist on labels.
I am always open to growing in my understanding of all truths as I study the bible. I am also open to learning from people with whom I don't have complete agreement on.
I have never in my life spoken of or taught or used the phrase "born again before faith". In fact the only place I have ever seen that exact theological phrase in on this blog, which is hard to miss. It feels like that phrase is woven into just about every post by you and bob.
I just googled the phrase "born again before faith" and not surpizingly you and Bob are source for 90+% of the use of that phrase.
I fellowship and worship with and partner with people all the time whom I don't have complete agreement with, that includes 5 point calvinists and 1 point calvinists.
My thankfulness for dever's writings and ministry has little to do with calvinism. In fact, I think he speaks QUITE rarely on the subject. Its funny that his name even comes up on this blog concerning that subject considering how little he has writting and preached on it.
His book 9 marks has a chapter on Biblical theology, and it could hardly be considered hardshell or hardcore or whatever. He has an article in Christianity Today on the atonement that doesn't even talk about the things that you casually associate with him.
I dont' have any grudge against Presbyterians either, I don't agree with them on everything, or else I would be a presbyterian.
I personally tend to emphasize the effectual call of God in salvation which comes about through the preaching of the gospel and as it is applied by the Holy Spirit. I rarely, if every speak of regeneration preceding faith. (which I don't necessarily disagree with) I think some of that discussion boils down to semantics.
I believe there is a sense in which God has to quicken people dead in their transgressions, to enable us to believe.
You may call that being born again before faith, I don't know. I have never called that quickening "being born again". I typically refer to a born again person as someone who is converted, which means that not only have they been quickened by God, but they have responded to the gospel with repentance and faith. I believe that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
I believe their are passages that seem to teach that faith is a gift, as well as repentance. I guess that would make me calvinistic. I also believe there is tension between passages that emphasis God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.
Am I in agreement with Berkhoff? I don't know, I've never read Berkhoff and have rarely heard him referred to, except by Bob Ross on this blog.
I believe I am I not in complete agreement with Sproul, theologically. But his writings on the attributes of God, specifically the holiness of God were very formative in years past. His sermon this week at T4TG didn't contain anything that I think any evangelical person would disagree with. He gave a very nice presentation of justification by faith. Much fun was made throughout the conference about the many areas of disagreement between the speakers.
The conference was, perhaps ironicaly,not overtly calvinistic. At Challies.com there are summaries of the messages, I don't know if any speaker made any comments on the subject of predestination.
I believe a one point calvinist could have gone and learned and worshipped and really found little to disagree with that was said.
I believe I have spent enough time on this blog, life is too short. So I thought I'd make my last post a good one.
Have fun fishing for more dumbies like me to get sucked into useless conversations like these.
God Bless!
Charles and Bob,
Keep up the good work! Someone has needed to tell the truth about Southern for a long time.
God bless you. This blog is read by many at the IMB.
John the missionary
Brother Hash,
Thanks for your comments. Come back anytime.
Charles
anonymous, Hello!
You wrote, that is so funny because he was the choice of the 'good old boys club' of the SBC
No, it was the trustees of SBTS that picked him.
Maybe you guys need to take the issue up with Paige Patterson etc./ To late for Dr. Rogers but both were the ones that picked him.
I don't believe that Patterson and Rogers were trustees of SBTS at the time. They may have provided an opinion but they had no say so in the matter.
Charles
wisdomofthepagescom, Hello!
You wrote, Why don't you put down your blasting guns
Have you also invited The Founders, Timmy, the Calvinist Gadfly, Gene M. Bridges, and others to put down their "blasting guns"? Or did you just come here to pick on me?
Charles
TO SCOTT MORGAN:
Brother, I love you in the Lord. Please STAY ON TOPIC.
If you're whipped it's OK to say so. You don't have to respond that way.
Charles
If you think that paige and rogers had no influence on who became trustees at Southern, and thus who became president, you quite mistaken.
The good 'ol boys pick the trustees.
The truth is that the good 'ol boys thought that Mohler would come in, clean house of all the liberals, and then be gone.
But he's stuck it out.
AnonYMoose, Hello!
The good 'ol boys pick the trustees.
No, the Committee on Nominations picks the trustees.
The misinformation out there is incredible!
The truth is that the good 'ol boys thought that Mohler would come in, clean house of all the liberals, and then be gone.
"The truth is" that whoever picked Mohler at the time probably did not know that he would hire professors who are closer to Presbyterians on the theology of the new birth than Southern Baptists.
Charles
Charles you are dead wrong patterson and others in the 'boys club' did and still do will a rod of controlling influence on the Convention and those in all position including the Presidents of the seminaries. You need to tell the truth about the facts Charles....
anonymous, Hello!
You need to tell the truth about the facts Charles....
If you know better then prove it.
Charles
Actually the point is that trustees are the indirect result of the influence guys like patterson and rogers. the point is that nothing happens by accident.
they probably didn't know how far mohler would go, but again I believe that they though he would only be there a couple years.
i'm sorry for not being precise enough
Charles,
I am a Southern student. You neglected to mention another big thing here. Most of my profs also push for elder rule churches. This is very similar to what Presbyterians have except it is in a Baptist dress.
I was given detailed instructions in class as to how to turn a church from pastor and congregational rule to elder rule. We were told to go slow because some churches have resisted the change to elder rule. "Resisted" as in "fired the pastor."
Almost everyone I know has a blog or wants to have one. There is also a blog which tracks the blogs of many Southern students. If I find it I will post it.
Charles and Bob, you guys rock! I want to help you however I can.
SBTS student
anonymoose, Hello!
You wrote, Actually the point is that trustees are the indirect result of the influence guys like patterson and rogers. the point is that nothing happens by accident.
they probably didn't know how far mohler would go, but again I believe that they though he would only be there a couple years.
i'm sorry for not being precise enough
I an agree on the indirect influence. They may have also spoken directly to the trustees or at least some of them.
You say they only thought Mohler would be there a couple of years? Why do you think this? He was a young man when the trustees hired him.
I agree also that they probably did not know how far Mohler would go. I cannot believe that Adrian Rogers (or trustees appointed by him) would have hired Mohler if they knew he was going to hire theologians who have never built a church and who believe that a person must be born again before putting their faith in Christ.
Charles
I believe they thought that mohler would have to expend so much political capital to get rid of the liberals and that he would make so many people mad as the hatchet man, that he would probably not stick in there.
I don't know if you have done a study of the professors at Southern, but some were brought in from active involvement on church staff and many professors are also serving as pastors right now.
I know that hershael york was specifically brought in because of his pastoral experience, he is currently a senior pastor in a fast growing church. Brad Waggoner came from the staff of large healthy, growing church in OH, Schreiner is actually as pastor, so is/was Tim Bougher, and these are just a few off the top of my head. I don't know that anyone could seriously argue against what Rainer has done for church growth as well.
You statement was that he hasn't brought in anyone who has built a church was bit of a sweeping statement, which is why i gave the examples. It seems that if there is a obvious shortcoming in your commentary it is the tendency to overstatements.
anonymoose, Hello!
You said, hershael york was specifically brought in because of his pastoral experience, he is currently a senior pastor in a fast growing church. Brad Waggoner came from the staff of large healthy, growing church in OH, Schreiner is actually as pastor, so is/was Tim Bougher
There may be exceptions, you are probably correct. I'm not sure that the one's you named are the exceptions. I was thinking more of the School of Theology.
Where does Schreiner pastor? Was he Southern Baptist before coming to Southern? Or did he become SBC in order to get a job?
Charles
sbts student:
which professor are you speaking about and in what class? I'm curious.
elders are not uniquely presbyterian. I think you'll find more than a few references to them in the N.T. BTW, the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention wrote a little treatise on elders.
Baptist Elders in the Past
This is too funny.
I'm an SBTS student, decidedly non-Calvinist, congregational, believers' baptism, the whole nine yards. Yet I disagree with every word spit by this blog. Even sadder is the anonymous SBTS student who posted in this commentary.
Having met Tim Brister, Wisdom of the Pages, and many of the SBTS student bloggers, I can unequivocally tell you, from my own non-Calvinist point of view, that I have yet to meet a single Calvinist here that does not evangelize and has not led people to the Lord.
This blog is a direct violation of Scripture. It's Corinthian. Nothing but division, division, division. Where is the building up of the church? Where is the edification of the saints? I see it nowhere. It sickens me to see that two of my non-Calvinist brethren are so stupid.
Put the Kool-Aid down, boys. Back away slowly. It will be all right.
Charles, you and Bob have it all wrong. If the "hybrid view" was taught and practiced we could baptize all the peds on Mother's Day and be well above the million mark. Ya'll are old school. You need to catch up with the new math.
Just in case you didn't catch it this is sarcasam and refutes the title of your original post.
Charles,
Thanks for your post. High Calvinism is the main cause of declensions in church history. Despite all the pretensions of correct theology, Reformed Calvinism in the form of TULIP etc is responsible for the death of missions and evangelism. They are good at blogging; I agree
Don
REPLY TO SCOTT:
The Apostle Paul speaks very broadly and talks about saving men (1 Cor. 9:22).
Some of our extremely orthodox brothers (like Scott?) would say at once, “You save men? How can man do that? Is not salvation of the Lord from first to last? How can you, Paul, dare to speak of saving some?”
Yet Peter spoke very much like this when he said, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” Indeed, the expression is a little more bold, if anything, and if Peter were alive now he would be called to account.
When Paul wrote to Timothy, he said to him, “Take heed unto yourself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this you shall both save yourself and them that hear you.”
The Apostle did not intend to insinuate that he could save anybody by his own power and no one thought that he could. He used expressions without guarding them because he was writing to people who mixed candor with their knowledge of doctrine and would not willfully misunderstand him.
He did not write for those who must have all the creed in every sermon and require all statements of the Truth of God to be cut into one shape.
The doctrine that salvation is of God alone, and is the work of the Holy Spirit was dear to him as life itself, and having often proclaimed it, he was not afraid of being misunderstood.
Our testimony, also, has for many years been clear upon this point and therefore we shall venture to be as accurately inaccurate as was the Apostle—and to speak of saving souls and winning souls after the manner of ordinary speech.
The expression used gives great prominence to instrumentality and this is the use and habit of Scripture.
There is not much danger of exaggerating the power of instrumentality and looking to men instead of their Master. The danger seems to lie in the opposite direction — in the habit of depreciating both an organized Church and a recognized ministry.
We have frequently heard it said of certain revivals that no particular person was engaged in them, neither evangelist nor minister had a hand in the work. This is thought to be a recommendation but, indeed, it is not. I fear that many hopeful beginnings have come to a sudden collapse because faithful and holy ministers have been despised and a slur has been cast upon ordinary instrumentalities.
Men talk thus under the notion that they are honoring God, but they are off the track altogether—for God still owns and blesses His chosen ministers and is honored thereby. And as He still works by them He would not have us speak disparagingly of them.
It has pleased God to save souls by His people and, therefore, He places in them a sacred longing to save some by all means.
He might, if He had pleased, have called all His chosen to Himself by a Voice out of the excellent Glory, just as He called Saul, the Persecutor. Or He might have commissioned angels to fly throughout the length and breadth of the world and carry the message of mercy. But in His inscrutable wisdom He has been pleased to bring men to Himself by men.
The Atonement is complete and the Spirit’s power is fully given — all that is needed is that men be led to believe for the salvation of their souls—and this part of salvation is accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the ministries of men!
Those who have, themselves, been quickened, are sent to prophesy upon the dry bones. In order that this Divine arrangement may be carried out, the Lord has implanted in the hearts of all genuine Believers a passion for the salvation of souls. In some this is more lively than in others, but it ought to be a leading feature in the character of every Christian.
Trying to bring others to Christ does us good by renewing in us our old feelings and reviving our first love. When I see an inquirer penitent for sin, I remember the time when I felt as he is feeling. And when I hear the seeker for the first time say, “I do believe in Jesus,” I remember the birthday of my own soul, when the bells of my heart rang out their merriest peals because Jesus Christ had come to dwell within me!
Soul-winning keeps the heart lively and preserves our warm youth to us! It is a mighty refresher to decaying love.
WHY IS NOT THIS PASSION MORE LARGELY DEVELOPED AMONG CHRISTIANS? Why is it that we do not yearn more over the perishing souls of men? Is it not that we have but very little Grace? But if we must come to particulars, do you not think that men are careless about the souls of others because they have fallen into one-sided views of Gospel doctrines and have turned the Doctrines of Grace into a couch for idleness to rest upon?
“God will save His own,” they say. Yes, but His own do not talk in that fashion. They are not like Cain, who said, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Unquestionably the Lord will see that His own elect are called in due season, but He will do this by the preaching or teaching of the Word.
Predestination is not a legitimate reason for inaction! Men do not consider it so in other matters, why, then, in religion? No, men save their fatalism to play the fool only with spiritual things! In all other things they are not such idiots as to suffer predestination to paralyze their minds! But here, since idleness needs an excuse for itself, they dare to abuse this sacred Truth of God to cripple their consciences! -- Excerpts adapted from http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols19-21/chs1170.pdf
wisdomofthepages, Hello!
You said, if you don't know the answer to that question, they why oh why are you making unfounded allegations.
I know the answer.
Charles
Steven Newell, Hello!
You said, Having met Tim Brister ..
This blog is a direct violation of Scripture. It's Corinthian. Nothing but division, division, division. Where is the building up of the church? Where is the edification of the saints? I see it nowhere. It sickens me to see that two of my non-Calvinist brethren are so stupid.
I suggest you talk to Mohler and Timmy about "division, division, and division." It was Mohler who hired the professors that teach "born again before faith" which is not believed by Southern Baptist churches.
As for Timmy, he has attacked on his blog Bobby Welch, Jack Graham, and others who are trying to get the SBC to evangelize and baptize more.
His attacks are even too much for Southern. When he complained about Graham being invited to Southern, they wrote him back and called his blog "juvenile" along with others.
I think Timmy is working too hard at UPS. He is panting and provacating so much I think he is about to pass out! Or maybe a box dropped on his head, I don't know. Either way, he didn't have the sense to take their mild rebuke to heart and so he blogged about the rebuke! (I'm not making this up. Read it for yourself.)
Help him, Steve. Give the boy a hand. Seminaring, blogging, and UPSing is too much for Timmy.
Charles
Bob, Hello!
Scott rebuked again by Spurgeon. Scott, you never did tell us how you were saved? Was the preacher a "regenerated as a baby but believed as an adult" hyper/hybrid? Was he one of those Arminians? What about it Scott?
Bob, I'm afraid Scott won't take Spurgeon to heart. He's had too much of that White Lightnin'
Charles
TRAGIC IMONK -- AN EXAMPLE OF HOW HYBRISM LEADS TO NOWHERE
Thanks, Charles, for referring me to the iMonk's account of his resignation from the Presbyterian Church where -- as I recall -- he was supply minister to about 20 elderly Presby women.
I am recalling from memory, so could stand to be corrected, but as I recall, the iMonk said he and his family were converted during a public invitation.
Later, he renounced invitations and proclaimed they had "corrupted evangelical Christianity." I wrote three replies, answering every one of his illegitimate arguments. He bashed me for doing so, of course.
iMonk said he "met the Calvinists" and they "ruined" him. He named several pedo-regenerationists by name, and began to follow and swallow their "Reformed" doctrine, including "born again before faith," hook-line-and-sinker. He named among his teachers at Southern, Dr. Timothy George, who taught against invitations, according to iMonk.
Then later, he called for an Internet Jihad against Joel Osteen -- and for what? What was Joel doing to iMonk? Was Joel a threat to the "elect" who were "regenerated" without faith?
Could Joel cause one of the "elect" to be damned? Were some of the 20 Presby women listening to Joel?
The iMonk's preaching at the Presbyterian pedo-regenerationist church evidently was a dying cause.
So he resigned.
But his ministry at that church was only symptonmatic of iMonk's problem -- which began when he opted to follow the pedo-regenerationists who know about as much on "regeneration" as Mickey Mouse and Beavis & Butthead.
He should have stuck with Spurgeon, and did some of the things like Spurgeon did to urge sinners to come to Christ.
While iMonk is a sad case of a Seminarian "ruined" (as he said) by the pedos and his professors who teach the same heresy, there is no sympathy here -- not after his distortion of Spurgeon, his extravagant charges against invitations, his uncalled for attacks upon Joel Osteen, and his unbridled arrogance. -- Bob L. Ross
PAT'S PLAN
pat said...
Charles, you and Bob have it all wrong. If the "hybrid view" was taught and practiced we could baptize all the peds on Mother's Day and be well above the million mark. Ya'll are old school. You need to catch up with the new math.
Pat may be onto something.
If the SBC -- following the lead of Mohler, the Founders, and the Southern Seminary -- adopted the "regeneration" view of Berkhof, Sproul, Duncan, and another Southern Seminary speaker that Charles will be revealing soon, we could baptize all those "regenerated" Baptist babies and add them to the SBC church rolls -- despite Mark Dever -- and the statistics would immediately jump to such heights that even Jim Eliff might have difficulty sorting out the figures on the "regenerated" and the "unregenerated." -- Bob Ross
HYBRID CALVINISM, NOT CREEDAL CALVINISM
Don said...
Charles,
Thanks for your post. High Calvinism is the main cause of declensions in church history. Despite all the pretensions of correct theology, Reformed Calvinism in the form of TULIP etc is responsible for the death of missions and evangelism.
This charge is subject to be misunderstood, so I want to clarify that "high Calvinism" and modern "Reformed Calvinism" is in reality HYBRID CALVINISM, not CREEDAL CALVINISM.
I submit that the modern "Calvinism" of the "Hybrid" variety -- such as found in Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, and any others who have adopted the NON-CREEDAL view of "born again before faith" heresy is NOT THE SAME as the CREEDAL CALVINISM of men such as Spurgeon, Carey, Fuller, Judson, Bunyan, Dagg, Carroll, Boyce, Whitefield, and others who believed that sinners are called by the WORD and SPIRIT -- and not by the Spirit alone without the Word (as taught by Hybrids).
I agree that the tendency of Hybridism -- which holds that sinners are "regenerated before faith," hence without the Word and Spirit producing faith, will lead to the death of evangelism and missions -- as it did in the Hardshell Primitive Baptist denomination.
But how would we account for Spurgeon and the others named who were Creedal Calvinists, and the great mission works which they did? We account for them by the fact that Creedal Calvinism is not the same as Hybrid Calvinism, no more than a Hardshell Baptist was the same as a regular or missionary Baptist in the 1800s.-- Bob L. Ross
"JESUS . . . THIS IS TIMMY"
Charles said...
As for Timmy, he has attacked on his blog Bobby Welch, Jack Graham, and others who are trying to get the SBC to evangelize and baptize more.
BOB'S COMMENT:
Charles, I went to Timmy's link where he is pulling his hair about Jack Graham's being invited to speak at the Seminary. Timmy seems to forget that if it had not been for the likes of Jack Graham the SBTS would most likely still be in the hands of the anti-inerrantists.
Mohler owes his job to the likes of Jack Graham, and it would be the height of ingratitude for Mohler to not invite Jack to SBTS.
Timmy probably would be going to school somewhere else, too, if it weren't for the likes of Graham.
In fact, I wonder if Timmy might not have been saved under the likes of Jack Graham -- like most of the current crop of sooper-dooper, sooper-sized, steroidal, oleo paludal "Reformed" brethren?
Also, I wonder why Timmy did not have a hissy when Mohler had the pedo-regenerationists such as Sproul and Frame at SBTS? Does Timmy think Mohler did the right thing having pedo-promoters who think that babies get "regenerated" in infancy and are worthy of church membership even if they are "regenerated unbelievers"?
I notice that Timmy has been partaking of the "White Lightnin',"
so I assume he approves of the Apostle James' doctrine that "spiritual brith" takes place before, without, and apart from believing in Jesus Christ.
If Timmy is this bad off, he might consider entering a decontamination chamber somewhere to see if it might clear up his mind from the effects of the "White Lightnin.'" -- Bob L. Ross
SCHREINER -- A SCHOLAR?
wisdomofthepages.com said...
Before coming to Southern, Schreiner was already established as one of the premier New Testament scholars in the world.
Luther said call no man a doctor who could not distinguish between Law and Gospel.
That would eliminate Schreiner, as he does not have a theological grasp of the Gospel, such as any Sunday School child would be expected to know, in the light of John 3:14-18.
Schreiner also needs to take a lesson from 1 John 5:4, where faith is said to be born and is that which overcomes the world.
Theologically, he could possibly correct his "regeneration precedes faith" heterodoxy if he read Charnock online at http://www.ccel.org/c/charnock/instr_regen/instr_regen.html
-- Bob L. Ross
Charles I find another funny in your question to Scott - "you never did tell us how you were save" - Charles, Charles surely you know how a man is saved but then maybe just maybe you don't!
If you are having to ask someone, who is a believer, how he was/is saved then maybe you should likewise share with us how you were saved? My pastor said this Sunday that a man is known, saved, and used by God when God is able to see something worthy and usuable in him....This is a typical SBC srmon of what I see taught Sunday after Sunday. The example used was that God looked down on Moses and found him useful so.... What was your experience and Bob's as well? What did you do to be saved and found worthy? For from all that you share on this site you find yourselves most worth indeed!
TO SCOTT MORGAN:
Scott, I am trying to keep things ON TOPIC.
Please remove the OFF TOPIC remarks from your "Attention Southern Seminary Students" comment and repost it.
Charles
WORTHY OR UNWORTHY?
Anonymous said...
Charles I find another funny in your question to Scott - "you never did tell us how you were save" - .... What was your experience and Bob's as well? What did you do to be saved and found worthy? For from all that you share on this site you find yourselves most worth indeed!
BOB'S COMMENT:
Since I do not even know Charles, have never talked to him, don't know where he lives or where he is from, I can't speak for him.
But as for myself, I have a "linkage" back to Spurgeon and Moody.
D. L. Moody was a close friend and associate of Spurgeon, and held meetings at Spurgeon's Tabernacle. Spurgeon supported and defended Moody against the Hypers of that time.
Moody copied a lot of Spurgeon's work, including Spurgeon's Pastors College. Moody used Spurgeon's Pastors College as a model of what became the Moody Bible Institute.
I was converted in a 1953 revival meeting held in my hometown of Jackson, Tennessee by a Moody Bible Institute graduate, a rather well-known Southern Baptist evangelist, now deceased. His legacy can be found at this link:
Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=15248
That Evangelist visited me here in Pasadena, Texas in 1974, wrote a jacket article for us to use on a Spurgeon volume of sermons, and asked me to do some printing for him. I keep a photo of him and me on my office door to remind me to "Thank God" for his ministry, under which I was converted to Christ at age 18.
It is a mystery why Scott Morgan will not or cannot tell about the circumstances of his conversion -- whether it was under "Arminian" circumstances or under "Hybrid Calvinist"? If he was converted under the likes of a Hyrid Calvinist, he is an "exception to the rule," as even the iMonk himself has indicated.
If you will give me a $1 for every one at Southern Seminary converted under an "Arminian" ministry, I will give you $10 for every one converted under a "born again before faith" Hybrid Calvinist such as R. C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, John Frame, James White, Thomas Schreiner, Tom Nettles, Scott Morgan or some other of this category.
As for the "worthy" item in your comment, maybe you should read passages such as First Thessalonians 1:5, 11 and also the passage where some judged themselves "unworthy of everlasting life" and rejected the Word of God. If a person sees himself as a sinner, then he qualifies as "worthy" to believe in accordance with the passage which says it is "worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world" to save sinners. We can thereby measure our "worth" by the sacrifice Christ made for us, right? If we were not "worth" saving, why did He die? (1Tim. 1:15). -- Bob L. Ross
If I had $1 for every person who prayed the prayer at a baptist church or activity, who then was no where to be found a month later, I'd be quite wealthy.
$1 said, Hello!
You wrote, If I had $1 for every person who prayed the prayer at a baptist church or activity, who then was no where to be found a month later, I'd be quite wealthy
So would Jesus! Look at the multitudes that followed him but where were they when he was crucified?
Brother Bob Ross has written about this. Read IN REGARD TO COMPLAINTS ABOUT NUMBERS OF "MISSING"
CHURCH MEMBERS AT CHURCH SERVICES [02/24--2006] and IS MURRAY'S PEDOBAPTIST "INFANT BAPTISM INVITATION SYSTEM" MORE LIKELY TO PRODUCE CONVERTS THAN SOUTHERN BAPTISTS?
$1, you must be a student at Southern Seminary. They are disposed to trashing their own churches even though most of them get a deep reduction in tutition because of the cooperative program money paid by these very same churches!
Why don't you get your professors to read The Calvinist Flyswatter? It would be an education for them.
Charles
Why don't you publish the article I posted by Schreiner? It certainly isn't off topic.
ScrYner, Hello!
Brother, post the LINK, not the entire article.
Unlike Steve Camp, The Flounders, The (Hyper) Calvinist Gadfly and others, all of whom deleted many of my ON TOPIC comments, I am not afraid of disagreement but please keep it pithy!
Please repost the link only and any on-topic comments you may have.
Charles
If I tithe and work in a baptist church which I have for several years (I'm no student), I have a right and a duty to express concerns about it.
that article was not that long. especially compared to bobs.
Don't you think the amount of time dedicated to talking about schreiner warrents an unedited publication of that short article?
please reconsider, it won't be a habit
shrYner, Hello!
Bob gets a special dispensation. You must know that by now!
The article is old news. I have already linked to it, and TCF readers have discussed it.
Charles
Tom Schreiner's article recently linked to for TCF states,
Regeneration means that one has been born again or born from above (John 3:3, 5, 7, 8)... Or, as 1 Pet 1:3 says, it is God who “caused us to be born again to a living hope” (1 Pet 1:3). The MEANS God uses to grant such new life is the gospel, for believers “have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Pet 1:23; cf. Jas 1:18).
Some commentators have made comments implying that schreiner believes that people are born again apart from "the Word". Clearly in this excerpt he tells us that the means of this new birth is the Gospel.
I have met dr. shreiner and he is indeed one of the most humble, kind men that I have ever met. He loves the Lord fervently, he has dedicated a lifetime to teaching students the Word of God.
Some of the comments about him and his work is uncalled for and ungracious. I hope that some day everone on this post will get the opportunity to have a conversation with him. They will be blessed.
It seems that typing serves very effectively in ratcheting up vitriol and snarky sarcasm and decreasing humility and grace.
shrYner said...
It seems that typing serves very effectively in ratcheting up vitriol and snarky sarcasm and decreasing humility and grace.
Yes, and please tell that to The Founders, James White, Timmy, the Calvinist Gadfly, Gene M. Bridges, Scott Morgan, and the other "Reformed" hyper/hybrid Calvinists who are the masters at it.
The Flounders trashed Bobby Welch, Bailey Smith, Jack Graham, Johnny Hunt, and others.
Scott Morgan trashes Johnny Hunt every time he gets a chance. He couldn't cut the mustard with Johnny and now it's payback time.
I could go on and on and on and on.
I checked these "Reformed" hyper/hybrid blogs, shrYner, and I didn't see you complaining about their "vitriol and snarky sarcasm". Did I miss something? Would you please provide a link to your comments on these other blogs. I'm sure you would want to clean up your own house before coming into mine.
Charles
God Bless!
I guess that's the end of the conversation.
SCHREINER
shrYner said...
Tom Schreiner's article recently linked to for TCF states,. . .
Some commentators have made comments implying that schreiner believes that people are born again apart from "the Word". Clearly in this excerpt he tells us that the means of this new birth is the Gospel.
Schreiner says further, "Several texts from 1 John demonstrate that regeneration precedes faith.. . . God regenerates us and then we believe."
This is an artificial distinction which has no existence in reality or experience. If regeneration is the birthing of faith by the Spirit's use of the Word to give dead sinners life by faith in Christ, it does not precede faith.
In his discussion, Schreiner fails to take 1 John 5:4 into consideration. This passage shows that it is "faith" which is "born of God" and overcomes the world.
The man in whom faith is born is the man who is born of God. No faith, no birth.
There is no allowance in John writings for a "born of God" person who does not possess a faith that is "born of God."
That is where Schreiner has an artificial distinction -- between "born of God" and the birth of faith. One cannot be born of God who has not had faith born of God in him.
"He that hath the Son hath life," and one has the Son by faith (1 John 5:12; 5:4; 5:1).
No faith, no Son; no Son, no life. "He that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (1 John 5:12).
One is born of God the very instant he has the faith born in him by which he has the Son, not an instant before.
If one could be born again before faith in the Son, he would be a "born again unbeliever" without having the Son. -- Bob L. Ross
SARCASM REWARDED
Charles said...
shrYner said...
It seems that typing serves very effectively in ratcheting up vitriol and snarky sarcasm and decreasing humility and grace.
Yes, and please tell that to The Founders,. . .
Do you remember how we "met," Charles? It was as a result of my being called a "GOOFBALL" on the Founders website by one of their bloggers who was ostensibly replying to you -- at a time when I had NEVER posted a single comment on ANYBODY'S BLOG.
Do suppose the "Founderers" would like to have that "Goofball" moment to do over? -- Bob L. Ross
HEMORRHAGE OF THE BRAIN?
Scott said...
Charles,
So the $64,000 question is Bob and Charles ARE YOU CUTTING THE MUSTARD WHEN YOU COMPARE THE TYPE OF CHRISTIANITY THAT PAUL TALKS ABOUT OR WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FOR THE LAST 85YRS IN THE SBC!
The question is, What are you talking about? You seem oblivious to the fact that the current crop of "Reformed" Kudzu-like people in the SBC are more deepwater Presbyterians than Baptists, tilting toward the Hardshells. They endorse a doctrine that says men are saved by a "direct operation" of the Spirit and are made "born again unbelievers," and you are having a hisssy because Charles and I still believe the Baptist Confessions and 1 John 5:4, 12.
As Ruckman used to say, "Go soak your head in a lister bag." That might help clear up you mind a little.
By the way, who was the Arminian preacher under whom you got saved, Scott? -- Bob Ross
DID SCOTT BLOW IT?
Scott said...
Charles,
I could not cut the mustard with Johnny? I have a letter here in my desk from him that says my work ethic was superb but we must depart because of theological differences!
Bob's Comment:
I think I am getting more of the "picture" on Scott and why he is so frustrated and filled with animosity toward Charles and me.
He evidently had a good position at that church he mentions, but he became infatuated with Hybridism and it cost him his opportunity to do a good work for the Lord.
Now he is out to vent his wrath on anybody and everybody who touches the sore spot of where he went wrong -- on theology.
Like the iMonk, he let the pedo-regenerationists "ruin" him and he unwittingle was led away from Creedal Calvinism, such as preached by Spurgeon -- "Look and Live."
He now seems to be out "on his own" at his new pastorate, but with the doctrine he is preaching, he may also wind up like the iMonk -- preaching in a dying cause.
Looks like it may be another case of a young man being shipped wrecked by Hybrid Calvinism. -- Bob L. Ross
TO SCOTT MORGAN
Bob to Scott:
Scott, I am going to make you an offer you can't refuse -- but you probably will, anyway.
Not long ago, you said you wanted to Debate with me. OK, let's do it.
You write out your Proposition, and I will write out mine. I will sign to deny yours, if I think it's wrong, and you can sign to deny mine, if you think it's wrong.
In order for you to be completely relaxed and not feel you are at a disadvantage, you can enlist some co-debaters (or whatever). You can enlist James White, Tom Nettles, Tom Schreiner, Al Mohler, R. C. Sproul, Tom Ascol, or any others of your choice, and any of them can sit at yout table to assist you, or even speak in your place, if you wish.
Now, if that's not enough, I will also promise not to put you on the spot about who your ministerial "father" was so far as your profession of faith is concerned. There are some rumours, but I am not believing any of them, and will not mention them.
Now, you set up the debate, tell me where it will be held, when it will be held, and I will do all I can to be there. I will even pay my own way and provide my own housing, etc.
Now, if you don't want to do that, I invite you to come to Austin, Texas and debate me on the TV program which I do there with a ministry with which I often work over there. You can also bring along any helpers you might need -- James White, Nettles, Mohler, Sprou -- or whoever you wish. We can provide you a place to stay while you here in Texas.
You need to do something like this to get this stuff ventillated from your system. It would be good therapy for your current state of mind. A face-to-face meeting in a debate just might be the solution. You have got to get over this, and put it behind you some way. You just can't go on ranting about Charles and me, Joel Osteen, and all the other stuff that is making you lose sleep at night.
Your ranting on this blog is getting downright psychologically serious -- as you are manifesting emotional instability, disorder, stress, delusions, hallucinations, and other forms of phantasmagoria. I would not want to see you have a "breakdown" of some description, especially if it was because you were so upset with Charles and me and Joel Osteen.
So let's meet in a brotherly debate, face-to-face, and you try to get all this stuff out of your system. It's not doing you any good the way things are going. -- Bob L. Ross
Bob there is the funny question again - who was the arminian preacher....- you all just don't get it do you its not about who preaches the Word - your theology is so shallow or should I say nonexistant.
Thank you Wisdom!
Well said and documented.
It getting tiring to hear, "but they're doing it at Founders" as an excuse for bad behavior.
now wisdom, you know that you now have to go rebuke everone on the internet who ever said anything bad about Johnny Hunt, if you are going to rebuke Charles.
That's only fair.
Brother Bob Ross said to Brother Scott Morgan, Not long ago, you said you wanted to Debate with me. OK, let's do it.
There you go, Scott! What an opportunity!
Why don't you zip an email over to James White and Tom Nettles and see if you can get some help.
Charles
AND WHO ARE YOU?
wisdomofthepages.com said...
Brother,
I deeply regret that someone on the Founders blog has in the past called you a goofball. Yes, I sincerely wish that they had not. . . .
Again, I think that on behalf of all Founders guys everywhere I can sincerely apologize for somebody's "goofball" comment.
BOB'S COMMENT:
Who are you to apologize for the Founders?
You were not the one who called me a "Goofball," were you? You were not the Blog Manager of that site, were you?
Have the Founders ever published an apology? I don't go to their blog very often, so I don't really know. Tom Ascol knows my email address, and I have had no apology from Tom. If an apology is in order, don't you think Tom should be the one to make it?
Understand, at that time I HAD NEVER PUT A COMMENT ON ANYBODY'S BLOG, AND DID NOT EVEN KNOW "CHARLES" EXISTED.
I only wrote to an email list, NEVER on a blogsite. I seldom ever even went to a blog, much less send a comment. I had no use for blogs. Charles is the still the ONLY blog I have written ANYTHING for.
Also understand, I NEVER ASK ANYBODY FOR AN APOLOGY. I have had worse things said about me, and I have survived, and never asked for an apology. If they don't see their wrong, then who am I to convict them?
I'm not going to whine about empty words . . . they are about as bad as sandflies.
I leave my enemies to the Lord. I had a Campbellite put up a visual with a "Rest in Peace" Tombstone with my name on it in January 1992 in a debate at Austin, Texas. He announced that I had met my "Waterloo."
The next time I was in Austin, a few weeks later, the Campbellite was in a Funeral Home, lying in a casket.
When I went to Pensacola to meet Ruckman's "Bible students" at their "Bible Forum," two of Ruckman's righthand strong-armers pulled some dirty tricks on us, and our video taping was thwarted to a great degree. They even pulled the plug on our camera.
Both of those "gentlemen" are now on the "outs" with Ruckman and off of his payroll.
You want me to apologize for something? What is it? The Flounders? The Founders are "flounders" because they have floundered around. That's a good description of their theology -- it is floundering theology. They are floundering with pedo-regenerationists, and should be shamed for their floundering.
"White Lighnin'" is appropriate, too, for some have been made drunk on aberrant doctrine by James White.
Lightning can kill you, and White's aberrant theology will do that. A man who teaches that you have "spiritual birth" before you have faith in Jesus Christ will kill you theologically.
Schreiner? A Scholar? He does not know the Gospel if he thinks anyone is "born again before faith" in Jesus Christ. The child that knows John 3:16 knows more about the Gospel than Schreiner.
Also, you ask Is it helpful to call Founders guys: "the current crop of sooper-dooper, sooper-sized, steroidal, oleo paludal "Reformed" brethren?"
It sure does! It let's them know, and others know, that they are just as theologically nutty as those words, and they need to know that they are not impressing anybody with their ignorance and blabber about the "ordo paludal" hallucination.
If you will look at those "Reformed" websites, there's not a dime's difference between them -- they are loaded down with ignorance inflated with arrogance while displaying a vain show of humility. The iMonk is a good example, not to mention Gene Bridges and James White.
No, I don't plan to alter my words, for aberrant doctrine deserves some rather strong words at times -- or did you fail to read Jude, Peter, and Matthew 23?
A fool's mouth calleth for strokes (Proverbss 18:6).
To Charles and Bob (though I believe that you are the same person, and just like to have converstions to yourself):
I have read most if not all comments left on this page and it seems that you are not really reading or taking in what anyone has to say, yet I will try anyway.
I think that Brother Hash has made some good points. Primarily when he asked you about your church. You have tried to tear apart others' ministry and churches, like you know better. Yet, you offer no proof that your ministry is any better. How is one expected to believe you when you will not offer an example of what should be taught at a church?? Not opinion, but a real church/ministry that teaches the way you believe and has fruit.
I also found your comments about Southern Baptist churches very hurtful. I attend a baptist church that is a part of the southern Baptist convention. I have attended this church for almost three years, as long as I have been in this town, and I have seen nothing but growth. When I first started attending, there were only at most three college students, now we regularly have at least ten and most times even more htan that at sunday school, not including those that join us during worship.
Our children and youth ministry's numbers have doubled or nearly so since I have been in attendance. Our church is growing and quite fast. We have a reputation for preaching the word and emphasizing leadership among the young people. Most churches will not let young people lead and we have young people involved in almost every aspect of our church.
Our numbers are also quite good for such a small church, for baptisms and members.
You seem so focused on one thing that you are not listening or reading yourself. I have read you accusations about blogging and find that you, yourself seem to be adding to the problem.
Someone who has no faith, would read your blog and find nothing but anger, pettiness, and no evangelism. You say that others to share the gospel, and yet you yourself do not on your own blog. If your blog is really for the advancement of the truth, and not for pettiness and spite, then it should be written that way.
The first way to make people not want to listen to the gospel is to only read about differences. You should think about your audience when you blog, it is not only believers that could read this but unbeleiving as well.
And if you are so concerned about the faith of others, perhaps you should think about that when you blog. Think about the people who nothing about doctrine and theology or scripture reading you blogs and just getting more confused by each line and comment.
You also said to someone that lengthy comments do not stay on topic and that is why you deleted his, but most of yours are quite lengthy, with about half of them just talking to yourself, or should I say charles to bob or bob to charles?
BRITTNEY SPEARS US
Brittney said...
To Charles and Bob (though I believe that you are the same person, and just like to have converstions to yourself):
Thanks, Brittney, for taking time out from your extraordinary career to read our blogs! Wish we were more pleasing to you!
Hey, look, Brittney . . . you must have crystal ball mental powers! You say Charles and Bob are the same person. Please don't let the secret out . . . we are trying so hard to keep it quiet. Don't tell the Enquirer!
By the way, don't you have enough to be concerned about in your own whirlwind world than to be side-tracked by a blog such as this? Don't you have a baby now, and a new husband, too?
We keep up with you at the Kroger store . . . in the checkout line . . . That's how we know so much about you.
Keep those hits coming! -- Bob
Bob said,
"If you will give me a $1 for every one at Southern Seminary converted under an "Arminian" ministry. I will give you $10 for every one converted under a "born again before faith" Hybrid Calvinist... "
I bet very few southern seminary students have been saved under an arminian ministry, most of them were probably led to Christ by people who believe at a minimum in the perseverence of the saints and reject the arminian heresy that you can lose your salvation.
BTW,since there are relatively few calvinists in the SBC, isn't that kind of a misleading question? Its not a strong point.
There are also relatively few african american pastors in the SBC. Could I then say, "I'll give you a dollar for every Southern seminary student who was led to christ by an african american pastor."
Then could I make the point that since so few at Southern Seminary were led to Christ by an african american pastor, that african american pastors are not passionate about evangelism?
Bob, arn't you a calvinist? Then a southern student, who had been led to christ by you, could not claim the $1 from you in the Arminian category. Thus, further illustrating the sillyness of the challenge.
The most recent Religious Congregations and Membership study published in 2000 indicates that during the last decade a continued trajectory of decline was experienced by the mainline denominations. While the Southern Baptist Convention grew at an overall rate of 5 percent over the last decade, the PCA grew by 42.4 percent Baptist Press
This study tells us that the Presbyterian Church in America is kicking some butt. Guys like Ligon Duncan, Phil Ryken, and D. James Kennedy are far from slacking in evangelism.
BTW, If I had a $1 for every person led to Christ by someone trained in Evangelism Explosion, created by Kennedy, I'd be living large.
A MAN AFTER MY OWN HEART
dollarholler said...
Bob said,
"If you will give me a $1 for every one at Southern Seminary converted under an "Arminian" ministry. I will give you $10 for every one converted under a "born again before faith" Hybrid Calvinist... "
I bet very few southern seminary students have been saved under an arminian ministry, most of them were probably led to Christ by people who believe at a minimum in the perseverence of the saints and reject the arminian heresy that you can lose your salvation.
BOB'S COMMENTS:
I agree with you, dollarholler. I believe you are right on the dollar, here.
You see, I don't view these type of ministries as "Arminian" in the same sense that our "Reformed" brethren view them. I view them as "Calvinists in embryo" and "Calvinists in practice." They preach salvation by grace thru faith, but because they also emphasize the responsibility of man to repent, believe, and come to Christ, they get a bad rap from the "Reformed" as being "Arminian." They use public invitations, and for this they are tagged "Arminian." If they are not in tune with the shibboleth called the "ordo salutis," they are regarded as "Arminian." If they don't believe that one is "born again before faith," they are branded "Arminian." If they are not in line with the "Reformed" on the "5 points," they are "Arminian."
Frankly, I know a lot of those types of "Arminians" who are far more in line with Creedal Calvinism than the "Hybrid Calvinists." -- Bob L. Ross
STATISTICS OF WHAT?
livin'large said...
The most recent Religious Congregations and Membership study published in 2000 indicates that during the last decade a continued trajectory of decline was experienced by the mainline denominations. While the Southern Baptist Convention grew at an overall rate of 5 percent over the last decade, the PCA grew by 42.4 percent Baptist Press
This study tells us that the Presbyterian Church in America is kicking some butt.
The PCA started as a aplit in 1973 with 41,000 and has been enlarged by a later merging in 1982 with other Presbyterians. These stats do not really categorize the methods of denominational additions by (1) conversions and by <2)adding infants to the church membership.
If you set aside the orginal split totals, the merging totals, and the infant additions, how many were added as new converts as a result of evangelism? -- Bob Ross
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST?
Scott said...
Bob,
I guess you win! After reading Brittneys comment I realized that I have lowered myself down to the level of you and Charles. This blog is not helpful to anyone and it only tempts me to commit sin in blasting you guys.
So I must say officially "Goodbye" to the Calvinist Flyswatter.
BOB'S COMMENT:
This is a wise move, Scott. You have not demonstrated that you have the wherewithal to engage in legitimate polemics. The fact you think James White is a debater reveals that you do not understand what is necessary to engage in legitimate debate. Your emotional outbursts are no part of legitimate polemics. Personal attacks are forbidden in legitimate debate.
I could go on and on, but I will just say that your withdrawal is far better for you than any continued demonstration of your lack of the necessities involved in polemics. -- Bob L. Ross
Bob says:
"By the way, don't you have enough to be concerned about in your own whirlwind world than to be side-tracked by a blog such as this? Don't you have a baby now, and a new husband, too?
We keep up with you at the Kroger store . . . in the checkout line . . . That's how we know so much about you.
Keep those hits coming! -- Bob"
I know that I shoouldn't even dignify all the nonsense you wrote with a response, but seeing as how you started it, I might as well attempt to finish it. First of all, if this were Britney Spears, I wouldn't have misspelled my own name. Secondly, I find it funny that you assume that there was nothing of value or credit in what I wrote though you posted it anyway. Perhaps, the opposite is true. Maybe you thought that everything I wrote was true and therefore instead of trying to attack the material, you try to attack the person. I may be young, yes, a fact that is shown in me posting my name. I can't help my years, but the lack of them should not make you think that you are superior to me, just because one gets older, that does not mean one gets wiser. I do have knowledge for my years, and I am not ignorant. Now while I do not know all the details about theology, I do know about the bible. While I can't quote it to you word for word, I have studied it and still study it. And I find it insulting that with your many years you seem only able to belittle people and not focus on what they are saying. Instead you just take what you want and twist it into whatever form will give a little satisfaction in the end. And I am sorry that I thought my humble post that did not include any thoughts about the failures or successes of Al Mohler did not meet your intellectual standards. But sometimes you have to go back to the basics to learn something, go back to the source. I'm sorry if in bringing you there, you felt that was childish and that you are above being held in accountability with the Lord's word or that this accountability was brought to you by someone whom you deemed unworthy simply by date of birth. I am not a child, but evidently even a college student is too young to be permitted a civilized conversation with.
BRITTNEY SPEARS US AGAIN
brittney said...
First of all, if this were Britney Spears, I wouldn't have misspelled my own name. Secondly, I find it funny that you assume that there was nothing of value or credit in what I wrote though you posted it anyway.
BOB TO BRITTNEY:
On the name, Brittney, we figured it out that you were using that as a "disguise" -- sorta like you have suggested about Charles and me being "one" but acting like we are different. See? Since no one else on this site seemed to catch on to it, your secret is safe with us. Just keep on using "Brittney."
Anyway, Brittney, in another thread where you posted, we are asking you to be our campaign manager as we run for President of the SBC. We would have never thought we were electable, but if we have so impessed you that the thought somehow came to your mind, then we have had a change of attitude.
We figure that one such as you, who has such discerning insight into our potential leadership attributes, would be the most likely person to handle our campaign with the degree of success we would want to attain. After all, look how successful you have been with your own career? You have earned your spurs.
You also say, I can't help my years, but the lack of them should not make you think that you are superior to me, just because one gets older, that does not mean one gets wiser. I do have knowledge for my years, and I am not ignorant.
We certainly agree, Brittney!
The fact that you have suggested that Charles and I should run for President of the SBC is evidence within itself of your knowledge and wisdom. You know a winner when you see one!
And that's why we are soliciting you to become our Campaign Manager. We want a young person who has plenty of knowledge but is not all "ordo salutified" by "Reformed" pedo theology. Your knowledge of the Bible is really all that counts -- especially with most Southern Baptists. They don't really care about Berkhofianism or that stuff about unborn babies being "regenerated." They just love the good old down-to-earth Gospel like it is in the book of John. And that's all we would want in you, Brittney.
Please make it a matter of prayer. Who knows but what the next President of the SBC could be a 2-headed Charles-Bob! -- Bob Ross
Flyswatter,
You wrote: "Dever is a strong promoter of the "born again before faith" heresy."
You also wrote: "Extreme/hybrid/hyper Calvinism as typified by the "born again before faith in Christ" theology taught at Southern Seminary, produces small, dead churches."
Your first statement suggests that your second statement is untrue. Capitol Baptist and many theologically similar churches are neither small nor dead.
Furthermore your first statement indicates that you are not familiar with Baptist history. Most of the significant Baptist confessions of faith from the past couple hundred years have affirmed the theological priority of regeneration to faith. Therefore to call this doctrine "heresy" is at bare minimum an overstatement.
BTW, you might want to read Tom Nettles's book By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971675503/qid=1147354493/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4941629-0960910?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
John
ON JOHN'S COMMENTS
John said...
Capitol Baptist and many theologically similar churches are neither small nor dead.
Bob to John:
I am not familiar with this church's history, on how it developed. I would venture the guess that its leadership was "converted" to Hybrid Calvinism after its early growth -- a pattern which I have seen in other cases in the past.
One church in this area which I knew very closely had 300 to 400 members before the leadership changed in its theological concepts, and today that church does not exist. It took about 10 years to come to naught.
A good-sized church in Kentucky, formed as a split from an SBC church years ago, has recently had a big split, and the former pastor is on the "outs" with those who now have the property.
It seems to be the pattern, in my personal observation, that these churches gradually deteriorate rather than grow.
The Banner of Truth-influenced churches, for example, have generally gone downward over the years. Even Westminster Chapel in London has changed.
I personally knew most of the preachers involved in the original Carlisle Grace Conference in 1966, and I only know one pastor who has had much growth, and he is not a Hybrid Calvinist.
Furthermore your first statement indicates that you are not familiar with Baptist history. Most of the significant Baptist confessions of faith from the past couple hundred years have affirmed the theological priority of regeneration to faith.
No, this is not the case at all. I have taught Baptist History in a local preacher's school, and have a thorough knowledge of it. There is not single Confession which has regeneration preceding faith, but rather, the affirm that the new birth is brought about by the Word and Spirit producing faith, which constitutes "regeneration" or the New Birth. See our other threads where we have dealt with this.
BTW, you might want to read Tom Nettles's book
While I do have the book, I would not have had to read it, for I know Nettles and he has often written to me, and we have exchanged differences on this subject of regeneration.
As I understand him, he advocates the basic Hardshell Baptist view -- that one is born again before, without, and apart from faith. This is not Creedal Calvinism. -- Bob L. Ross
I would not presume to know Mohler's effect on Baptisms. However you sound a good alarm. Mohler, Dever, Piper, and MacArthur have advocated a so called "Lordship Salvetion v. a "Easy Believism. They are not advocating Calvinism or the Reformed Doctrines of Dort. They are advocating the evolved Calvinism of the Puritans and the Scottish Calvinism. While giving the nod to forensic Justification it imported an aspect of Augustinian intrinsic Justification and intrinsic assurance. Salvation assurance must be checked by introspective examination. Calvin clearly taught assurance from both a witness of the Spirit (Rom.8)and an extrinsic assurance based on the facts of scripture. he did see regeneration that brought faith but separated repentance from faith.
The advocated Puritanism of some popular preachers is the old lights Puritanism that resisted the Great Awakenings. Out of the Awakenings came a new lights Calvinism that saw faith as active and the means of regeneration. Old light Puritanism doted on words and order of decrees.
Some young preachers, reacting to the chaos and lack of teaching in evangelicalism, have followed some popular preachers. Unfortunately the exegesis is not always as pure as claimed and the theology does not produce a zeal for souls. One poster sought to post a list of missionaries from a church as some evidence. The list is short considering size. However, the church has grown from transfer growth not conversion growth.
Bob Topartzer
A SIGNIFICANT POINT
Bob Topartzer said...
However, the church has grown from transfer growth not conversion growth.
Bob Ross' comment:
This is a very significant point. Since I was converted in 1953, I have not observed "conversion growth" as being a characteristic of churches which put a lot of emphasis on "Reformed" theology, and especially so among those who are of the "Hybrid Calvinist" variety. The pedo churches maintain their memberships by adding babies to the church roll, while the "Reformed" Baptists generally decline since they do not practice adding infants to the church roll. They tend to de-emphasize aggressive evangelism, abandon invitations, and put down "decisions" as being "decisional regeneration." Yet most of these people of my personal acquaintence were themselves converted by the Gospel as it was presented in those type contexts. -- Bob Ross
Calvin hated the Baptists, he said they are “filth and villainy...mad dogs who vomit their filth against the majesty of God and want to pervert all religion. Must they be spared?” (1555) He was vicious toward them, he also called Baptists “henchmen of Satan!”
Why don't more people read John Calvin: "Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines." Seriously..
I mean, seriously why would the SBC want to go for calvinism.
"The pedo churches maintain their memberships by adding babies to the church roll" -- Bob Ross
Huh? Have you ever been to a PCA church? This is a huge over-generalization... in fact most of the stuff I've seen here are over-generalizations. It diminishes the trustworthyness of what is said when it is full of half-truths and generalizations.
Yes...it is true! Mohler is responsible for the decline in baptisms...but that is not all. He also is the mastermind of the 9-11 plot to bomb the WTC and Pentagon, along with instructing Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in the ways of communism; also if you look carefully at the McGruder film you can see a small boy with a large Mohler-like head holding what is definitely a high caliber rifle. The jig is up and Mohler is finally seen as the evil puppet (Calvinist-speak for predestined evil) he is. Those guys are brilliant and so spiritual to uncover the hinge of nepharius activity slithering behind the door. I understand he is also responsible for the 75% of unregenerate aisle walkers we "proudly" call church members who never attend or show any signs of holiness. But why should I worry. After all, isn't the most important documents we sign the church letters we send to the convention that have more padding than Santa's butt.
Anonymous, Hello!
You wrote, "Mohler is responsible for the decline in baptisms...but that is not all. He also is the mastermind [of all things bad]."
Anonymous, your comments are evidence of why discussion of Mohler's job performance as the president of Southern Seminary are met with near hysterics from the neo/hybrid/extreme/hyper Calvinist side.
You wrote, Those guys are brilliant and so spiritual to uncover the hinge of nepharius activity slithering behind the door.
I'm glad that your education at Southern is exposing you to words like nepharius. By the way, it's spelled "nefarious."
You said, I understand he is also responsible for the 75% of unregenerate aisle walkers we "proudly" call church members who never attend
If you have been reading The Flyswatter, you've find that neo/hybrid Calvinist pastor Scott Morgan has already discovered where the "missing" members are--They have been proselyted by the neo/hybrid/hyper Calvinist churches! As Brother Bob Ross has said, these churches do not grow from evangelism and therefore must proselyte members from Southern Baptist churches.
I recommend you read a couple of Brother Bob’s articles that will provide you with information you will never get from Southern Seminary.
IN REGARD TO COMPLAINTS ABOUT NUMBERS OF "MISSING" CHURCH MEMBERS AT CHURCH SERVICES [02/24--2006].
WHAT'S WRONG WITH MODERN CALVINISTS? [03/08--2006]
Charles
The SBC stance on this matter is made clear by the Baptist Faith and Message which states, "Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner RESPONDS in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Thus, according to the Baptist Faith and Message, the change of heart PRECEEDS faith and repentance.
If believing what you call the "born again before faith" heresy is indeed heresy, then you call Jesus a heretic. Read John 3:1-15. Dr. Mohler and Calvinists did not invent "born again before faith." Jesus did.
Post a Comment
<< Home