R.C. Sproul, Jr. has been defrocked
News outlets have reported that R.C. Sproul, Jr. has been defrocked as a minister by his denomination, the Westminster Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly.Sproul, Jr. is founder of the Highlands Study Center and is the son of best selling author and Presbyterian theologian, R.C. Sproul, founder of Ligonier Ministries.
R.C. Sproul is a leading promoter of the heresy that a person must be born again before he places his faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Sproul also practices infant baptism despite having no biblical support for the practice.
R.C. Sproul's heretical "born again before faith" views are rejected by nearly all Southern Baptists, yet Dr. Al Mohler at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has invited him to speak at the seminary. In the past, Dr. Mohler also spoke at a Ligonier Ministries event. He is also scheduled to appear with Sproul during an upcoming conference in Louisville with Mark Dever and John Piper, both of whom enthusiastically endorse the "born again before faith" heresy.
Dr. Mohler seems quite stricken with R.C. Sproul and recently gave a glowing endorsement of his ministry and theology.
R.C. Sproul has set the standard for teaching biblical truth and serious theology to an entire generation of American evangelicals. Ligonier Ministries produces materials that are biblically faithful, rich in theological content, and clear in application. We are living in a time of theological emergency and R.C. Sproul with Ligonier Ministries has come to the rescue!
A baby baptizing Presbyterian who believes that a person is born again before they place their faith in Jesus Christ is the "standard for teaching biblical truth and serious theology"? If the 1980s and 1990s taught anything, it was that Southern Baptists expect their seminary presidents to promote Southern Baptist beliefs. Yet Dr. Mohler continues to surround himself with men who are not Southern Baptist and who teach the "born again before faith in Jesus" heresy.
Come on, Dr. Mohler! You know better than that.
Charles
posted by Charles @ 10:09 AM
34 Comments:
What troubles me right now about RC Sproul is that he's not doing anything to keep his son out of the CREC. The CREC is a big promoter of the Federal Vision heresy. If RC Sproul really was consistent and if he really cared so much about the Reformed theology that he promotes he'd tell his son to stay as far away from the CREC as possible.
R. C. SPROUL JR. -- A VICTIM OF THE
"BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH"
HERESY?
Dear Charles:
Thanks for the article on R. C. Sproul Jr.
While we cannot always be certain of "cause and effect" matters, we at least know that the "regeneration" which R. C. Sproul Jr. supposedly received "before faith" did not "take" sufficiently to insure he would be sound in the faith.
If Sproul Jr. thinks he was born again in infancy, that does not neccesarily mean that he did not later on really trust Christ and become a Christian, but if he has been given in his ministry to propagating that same heresy, who knows to how many dear souls he has contributed potentially soul-destroying doctrine -- to many who shall never be delivered from this delusion?
The greatest blight to ever hang over Christianity is any heresy that departs from or distorts the simple Gospel of Christ, that by believing on Christ men are saved, born again or regenerated, solely by the Holy Spirit's use of the Word of God in penetrating their dead souls, by which Word and Spirit they are given their faith, made new creations in Christ, and are raised up to sit together with Christ in Heavenly places.
Whether in a system of theologyone believes theoretically as the Creedal Calvinist that this faith is a gift of God, or with some other "system" that faith is in some sense or even purely an act of man, both the Creedal Calvinist and the man of the other system believe that there is no New Birth without faith in Jesus Christ,and this is far more important than being allegedly "sound" on the so-called "ordo salutis,"or the order of the salvation experience.
That is why C. H. Spurgeon,during the "Down Grade" period in 1886-1888, heartedly approved of Arminians who preached the Gospel, saying:
>>
We care far more for the central evangelical truths than we do for Calvinism as a system; but we believe that Calvinism has in it a conservative force which helps to hold men to the vital truth, and therefore we are sorry to see any quitting it who have once accepted it. Those who hold the eternal verities of salvation, and yet do not see all that we believe and embrace, are by no means the objects of our opposition: our warfare is with men who are giving up the atoning sacrifice, denying the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and casting slurs upon justification by faith.
The present struggle is NOT A DEBATE upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. ALL WHO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL should unite against that "modern thought" which is its deadly enemy. >>The Sword and the Trowel, April 1887, pages 195, 196:
Spurgeon again wrote in The Sword and the Trowel, December 1887:
>
Certain antagonists have tried to represent the Down Grade controversy as a revival of the old feud between Calvinists and Arminians. IT IS NOTHING OF THE KIND. Many evangelical ARMINIANS are as earnestly ON OUR SIDE as men can be. We do not conceal our own Calvinism in the least; but this conflict is for truths which are common to all believers.
>>
The Sword and the Trowel, October 1888, page 563:
>>
We are represented as wishing to force upon the churches a narrow CREED. Nothing was further from our mind. We do not consider that the demand for agreement to vital truths COMMON TO ALL Christians can be looked upon as a piece of sectarian bigotry. Here is a man, who is himself a Calvinist, who does not ask that a Union should draw up a Calvinistic creed, but only begs for one which will let the whole world know that brethren are associated as Christians, and that those who do not agree to the first principles of our faith will be intruders. Is this narrowness?
>>
Spurgeon also said --
>>
I believe, most firmly, in the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic, and I hold them to be very fraught with comfort to God's people; but if any man shall say that the preaching of these is the whole of the preaching of the gospel, I am at issue with him.
Brethren, you may preach those doctrines as long as you like, and yet fail to preach the gospel; and I will go further, and affirm that some who have even denied those truths, to our great grief, have nevertheless been gospel preachers for all that, and God has saved souls by their ministry. . .
Preach Christ, young man, if you want to win souls. Preach all the doctrines, too, for the building up of believers, but still the main business is to preach Jesus who came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. . . This simple truth, that “Jesus Christ has come to seek and to save that which is lost,” and that “whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life,” must be your jewel, your treasure, your life.>> [#786 — The Great Mystery of Godliness, MTP Vol 13, Year 1867, 1 Timothy 3:16]
"C. H. Spurgeon earnestly exhorted those who had accepted Christ as their Saviour to come forward amongst his people and avow their attachment to His person and name. Words of kindly encouragement and of loving persuasiveness, were addressed to the timid and retiring ones, who feared to avow themselves to be the Lord's lest they should fall back into sin and dishonor His name. This was followed by an appeal to those who had confessed the name of Jesus — an appeal of so stirring and searching a nature, that many must have felt constrained to say, 'Lord what wilt thou have me to do?' Prayer for more earnest living, abiding, practical godliness, followed this address." — The Sword and The Trowel Magazine, 1865, page. 70 .
Spurgeon said in one of his New Park Street sermons --
>>
I do not say to you, "Go home and seek God in prayer; I say come to Christ now at this very hour;" you will never be in a better state than you are now, for you were never in a worse state, and that is the fittest state in which to come to Christ. . . . I know our Calvinistic brethren will not like this sermon—I cannot help that—for I do not hesitate to say, that Phariseeism is mixed with Hyper-Calvinism more than with any other sect in the world. (New Park Street Pulpit, Year 1860, #336 — STRUGGLES OF CONSCIENCE, page 403). -- Bob L. Ross
First, this news about RC Jr. is old news. Your a little late in your information.
Second, RC Sr. is not the lead of anything relating to what you claim as heresy. This is your personal interpretation of the matter. Much of what you misinterpret is orthodox Christianity and has been widely seen as Truth long before those you judge were even born.
Third, Praise God for the Godly men that are going to be at Southern. They are so needed.
I got my LifeWay catolog in the mail today. Sadly it promotes more junk. They now have for sale not only the Junk of Rick Warren, Joel Osteen but now promote Don Miller and Brian McLaren. If this is a sign of the future of the SBC - Lord Help Us who are affiliated with them!
R
Hey Charles --
So... when are we going to deal with the Bible rather than say "such and such" is a heresy or report on this, that, or the other?
Give us the BIBLE man! :)
SDG,
DH
David said, Give us the BIBLE man! :)
Here's some for you.
Charles
Charles said...
David said, Give us the BIBLE man! :)
NO DIFFICULTY AT ALL
BOB TO CHARLES:
Charles, below I will give some more "Bible" from a Spurgeon sermon on a favorite "Calvinist" text.
Just inside my front door is a foyer, and on either side I have shelves which hold some of my books. On the right side, I have Spurgeon's 63 volumes of sermons, and as I come and go, I ofttimes will stop and take volume at random and read for a few minutes. Seems I always am reading the same message, salvation by faith in Christ, and I never tire of reading it again and again.
Tonight I was at the house for a few minutes before coming back to the store for some night work, and on the way out I picked up volume forty of Spurgeon's sermons, and simply at random turned to sermon #2386, The Drawings of Divine Love.
The text is: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” — John 6:44, 45.
As I read, I quickly saw near the bottom of the second page Spurgeon's summary of the teaching of the text which should forever satisfy anyone who has thus far failed to understand him on the New Birth -- such as our fine Founders' friend, Scott Morgan. This quote should dispel the "cornfusion" from the mind of Scott or any other who seems to be lacking about Spurgeon's view. It is so simple that a child could easily grasp the meaning.
Here is the quote from the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 40, sermon #2386, page 530:
>>
There are philosophical difficulties about this matter of simple faith and salvation by it, and of the Spirit’s work and the necessity for it; but, practically, there is no difficulty at all, for the man who believes in Christ Jesus is born again, and every man who is born again believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. The two things come together, live together, and are perfected together.
>>
So it may be a "philosophical difficulty" for some of the metaphysically inclined brethren, but "practically" it is very simple: The man who is "born again" is the man who "believes," and the man who believes is born again.
Again, we see how the wisdom of Spurgeon on the New Birth dispels the "born again before faith" delusion. -- Bob L. Ross
David Hewitt said...
Hey Charles --
So... when are we going to deal with the Bible rather than say "such and such" is a heresy or report on this, that, or the other?
Give us the BIBLE man! :)
BOB:
I wonder, David, if you have been visiting any of the other blogs and seen the lack of GOSPEL on those blogs?
I went to a scant few today -- including James White and Phil Johnson -- and they are focused on stuff that have little to do with promoting interest in the Gospel. Phil is all hyped-up about the iMonk and N. T. Wright, and if either one of those palabberers knows what the Gospel is, I have seen no evidence of it. Wright teaches that babies get born again in infancy, so the pedos deserve him. And the iMonk claims he was saved during a public invitation which he subsequently claimed has "corrupted evangelical Christianity." I don't know if that included iMonk or not.
Anyway, you can find some "Bible" of sorts in just about all the blogs in some form, but how many of them even know what the Gospel of the Bible is, much less stand for it?
Most of the Hybrids I have seen the few times I have ventured out into the slough of blogdom are devoted to some form of Hybrid Calvinism, trying to show they are in line with the "ordo paludal" while either practicing or keeping silent about pedo-regenerationism, one of the biggest errors to ever come down Phantasmagoria Boulevard.
Why are you picking on the Flyswatter? At least we are trying to encourage people to stay true to the simple Gospel of salvation by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Is that so bad?
-- Bob
I love how you guys throw around the term "heresy" any time it defines something that you don't believe in personally. Really, it's gotten to the point that it is laughable. As ANONYMOUS pointed out, this is really old news. I posted on it about a month ago and its been settled since the end of February.
BTW, ANONYMOUS, I posted on the LifeWay catalog on my own blog. You sound as fired up about it as I am. Thanks for affirming my own opinion about the direction of LifeWay.
SOME REDEEMING VALUE?
D.R. said...
I love how you guys throw around the term "heresy" any time it defines something that you don't believe in personally. Really, it's gotten to the point that it is laughable.
BOB'S COMMENT:
Since you obviously do not share our understanding of what constitutes "heresy," I suppose this must mean that you do not consider "pedo-regeneration" and "born again before faith" to be heresies.
Every man to his own poison, right?
At any rate, it is nice that you do get a "laugh" from the Flyswatter, for as Scripture says,
"A merry heart doeth good like medicine" -- Proverbs 17:22.
It could be, however, if we are right, your laughter may be "turned to mourning" -- James 4:9.
The "moral" is -- take heed how ye laugh. -- Bob
Thank you for your comments d.r. - it is nice to have my comments affirmed from someone like-minded as I can tell we are after I checked out your information.
Bob, Bob, Bob - you are so, well, lacking in understanding though you try so hard to come across informed.
We who are Reformed in our
Theology are not Believers in heresy unless you believe the Word of God is heresy - which at this point as I read you I am not sure that you do believe the Word of God to be what it is. I believe it is you and Charles that need to heed the Word of God for it brings out the Truth of every mans heart.
NOT HERESY?
Anonymous said...
Bob, Bob, Bob - . . . We who are Reformed in our
Theology are not Believers in heresy unless you believe the Word of God is heresy - which at this point as I read you I am not sure that you do believe the Word of God to be what it is.
BOB'S REPLY:
The two things the Flyswatter has pegged as "heresy" are: (1) the idea that sinners are "born again" before they believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour; (2) the idea that babies are "regenerated" or "born again" in their infant years, if they are born to believers.
If you hold that these views are taught in the Bible, then you must be something other than a Baptist -- am I right?
If that is the case, then you have your right to believe as you please on these things, but I personally don't know any Baptist who would not think that these things are "heresy."
I wonder, however, do you think you were saved by being "born again" without believing in Christ, or by being "regenerated" when you were a baby? -- Bob L. Ross
I agree with the "oldness" of the Jr. news. Your post looks like a southern baptist sermon. you already have something you want to convey (sr. pedo-babble) and you then search for a text from which to launch (jr. defrocked). as in too many sermons,and as in your post, there is very little continuity. careful with the axe grinding.
Charles and Bob:
Brothers, my point is this. If we are to bring out the truth, then we must engage the Scriptures. It's my understanding that this blog is opposed to "Calvinism" -- right? Would not the way to deal with it then to be to go to the Scriptures and show how TULIP (for starters) is false?
Also, Mr. Ross, I understand you are a Calvinist...right? I must admit (honestly) that I'm confused why you two have joined up, if Charles is not a "Calvinist" and you are. This is not a criticism, but is a statement of confusion. :)
In any case, the only way to settle the issue is to bring out the Scriptures. I went to that other link, and the only thing that was provided was a bit of Calvin's comments on one verse, and, unless I missed it, no other Scripture was cited.
Yes, other blogs don't always have a lot of Scripture in them. It depends on what they are trying to accomplish. If they are trying to defend a doctrine, they do exegesis. Otherwise, they might just toss a point in or mention a tidbit here and there.
That is my point with this blog. If you here at the Flyswatter are opposed to the Doctrines of Grace, then let's find out how they are mistaken! The only way to do that is to do GOOD SCRIPTURE EXEGESIS. We need to know what the Bible says, and if we do not, then we don't have any authority for our agreement or disagreement with any theological position.
That is my whole point in making the request for more Scripture.
Thanks for letting me post here. :)
SDG,
David Hewitt
i think i understand what david hewitt is asking for. why is spurgeon the source of authority. david calls for scripture and what is offered are quotations from sermons. benedict xvi is still seated isn't he (grin)?
TRUTH IS OF THE ESSENCE, RIGHT?
David Hewitt said...
BOB'S REPLY:
David, you have been read and refuted on everything you have introduced on this blog.
I have had to virtually "educate" you on some things you did not know about pedo-regenerationists, for instance. And despite my giving you sources, you still were evidently too "busy" to read them.
Now you are belly-aching about wanting "Scripture." David, there is a Baptist Confession with prooftexts, and I stand by the Confession and the texts. Go read them. I believe them. They express my views. If you want commentary, go to Dr. Gill on the Internet. You will not find one better.
I do not care to read any distortions you may have on Scripture, if you are interested in perverting them in favor of the heresies we are refuting. There are some minds so permeated by error that it is simply a waste of time to discuss Scripture with them.
Charles did not ask me "what" I was in regard to a theological "system" when he used my first article, which he got from my email, which always carries with it my "permission" to use.
Furthermore, I did not ask Charles "what" he was as to a theological system when I made my first comment on his blog.
I do not make theoretical theological "systems" a test of Christian fellowship. The basis of my fellowship is Christ and the Gospel.
Charles has impressed me that he is in Christ and loves the Gospel of Christ. What else is required of him or me to merit one another's fellowship? Conformity to the Berkhof "ordo paludal"?
Conformity to James White's "born again before faith" heresy? Conformity to R. C. Sproul's "pedo-regeneration" heresy on page 1664 of his study Bible?
All that matters to me is that Charles and I share the faith of the Gospel, which automatically unites us in the rejection and repudiation of non-Creedal Calvinism on the new birth, and the false doctrine that infants are "regenerated" while still in diapers.
If you do not care to read us on these issues, then there is plenty of non-creedal Hybrid Calvinistic exegeetin' to be enjoyed on the website of "James, the servant of God" who "seems to be somewhat."
-- Bob L. Ross
Bob, what you consider heresy is not what they believe. Sproul doesn't believe in an actual regeneration to pedo-baptism. I would love to see you discuss this with him. And when you say that White (or whoever else) believes one is born-again before they are converted, you skew the facts. The fact is the ordo salutis is regeneration first and then conversion, but these are basically simultaneous. The regenerated heart sees Christ for the first time and then the Holy Spirit endows faith so that he can ask forgiveness for sins and actually trust in Christ for salvation. It's not like White or others believe that one is regenerated and stays in that state for a few years and then is converted, or that he stays regenerated never to be converted. That would be heresy. But the work of the Holy Spirit that enables one to believe is what is occuring. We call that regeneration. And that my friend, is Biblical.
d.r. says,
The fact is the ordo salutis is regeneration first and then conversion, but these are basically simultaneous.
It's not like White or others believe that one is regenerated and stays in that state for a few years and then is converted,
What about John the Baptist?
Charles
RC Sproul in his study bible says, "Infants can be born again, although the faith that they exercise cannot be visible as that of adults."
Faith that they exercise? This shows the complete corruptness of the pedo-regenerationist theology.
Remember, Dr. Mohler recommends Sproul and his theology!
Charles
SPROUL AND PEDO-REGENERATION
D.R. said...
Bob, what you consider heresy is not what they believe. Sproul doesn't believe in an actual regeneration to pedo-baptism.
If R. C. Sproul were to deny that infants born to believers are "regenerated" in their early weeks or months, before they are capable of understanding and believing, he would be in denial of Dr. Berkhof's Systematic Theology, not to mention Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, and other Reformed scholars.
If R. C. denied that, he might wind up like R. C. Jr. -- ex-communicated.
BTW -- there is not a dime's difference between the Romanists, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and the Reformed on baby regeneration.
The first three sects attach regeneration to baptism in some way, while the latter Reformed sect refers to baptism as the "sign and seal" of regeneration, but they ALL teach infant regeneration.
If they did not baptize the offspring of their members and put them on their church rolls, they would probably go out of the religion business. The salaries of their ministers is directly dependent upon the baptism of babies.
Basically, very few of them have any Gospel to preach to lost souls. -- Bob L. Ross
SPURGEON'S "SIDE-BY-SIDE" or JAMES WHITE'S "ORDO PALUDAL"?
D.R. said...
Bob, And when you say that White (or whoever else) believes one is born-again before they are converted, you skew the facts. The fact is the ordo salutis is regeneration first and then conversion, but these are basically simultaneous.
BOB'S COMMENT;
C. H. Spurgeon said, "Regeneration, in the Scriptures, is ALWAYS put side by side with faith, as anybody can see who will read the Scripture without prejudice, seeking to know the truth that is there revealed." (Spurgeon, MTP, #3121, page 584).
The Exegeeter-in-Chief of "Born Again Before Faith," JAMES WHITE, says:
"Divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ as well as good works" (Potter's Freedom, page 288).
If James meant to say "simultaneous," why didn't he say "simultaneous"?
He has BOTH faith and good works AFTER "divine birth." Does that sound like "simultaneous," or "side-by-side"?
Go figure.
Now, who do suppose knows more about the New Birth -- Spurgeon or James White?
Whenever "Calvinists" take to defending their lack of evangelism and soul-winning, they invariably mention C. H. Spurgeon, not to James White. If they had to point to White, they would have little if anything to show for.
Do they ever offer Berkhof, Shedd, the Hodges, Iain Murray, R. C. Sproul, Al Moher, Tom Nettles, or some other promoter of the "ordo paludal" as an example of a Calvinist who evangelized the lost and had elect souls born again thru God-given faith in Jesus Christ?
The reason they point to Spurgeon is not due to his Calvinism, but due to his success in preaching the Gospel and the fact that he believed that elect sinners are drawn to Christ for salvation thru faith. Therefore, he preached to the dead dry bones, believing that God's Spirit would honor His Word and convert them, which He did.
That's why Spurgeon had converts and these other arm-chair Calvinists don't have converts. He preached the Gospel, they expound the "ordo paludal."
As for James White, the Great Exegeeter knows about as much about the Gospel as the Hardshell Baptists, for whom he preached last year. - Bob L. Ross
Are you kidding me Charles -- John the Baptist? You bring up a pre-crucifixion example. I don't think this one qualifies for a normative understanding of the NT ordo salutis. Thanks anyway.
BTW, I would want to know what exactly Sproul meant by his statement here, not just a pulled out of context quote. I mean, what passage is even being talked about. Give the courtesy of some context at least.
Ok, I have really about had enough of this. :)
Here is the matter about Regeneration that R.C. Sproul and others believe (emphasis mine):
The logical priority of regeneration in Reformed theology rests on the doctrine of total depravity or moral inability. Because fallen man is morally unable to incline himself by faith to Christ, regeneration is a logical necessity for faith to occur. If we were to posit that faith precedes regeneration, then we would be assuming that unregenerate people, while still in an unregenerate state, have the moral ability to exercise faith. If the unregenerate can exercise faith, then it follows clearly that they are not fallen to the degree of moral inability, as claimed by classical Augustinian and Reformed theology. This would involve an Arminian or semi-Pelagian view of the fall.
SOURCE: R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 193.
See that? R.C. Sproul believes in a LOGICAL precedence of regeneration to faith -- NOT a time allowance!
Charles, your quote from the Reformation Study Bible is merely saying that infants can be born again. Of course, justification is by faith, so that theological note is indicating that they would have to have some kind of faith that was produced by the regeneration. Of course, an infant's faith cannot be seen, while an adult's can. This is the difference.
I strongly suspect the reason for this is for infants who die before they are even physically and mentally capable of making a profession of faith in Christ. John Piper goes into more detail on this matter here.
Mr. Ross, I find it odd that you would think I've been succesfully refuted on this site, especially when you seem to have issues of your own when it comes to quoting people in context. Well, no, that I suppose would make sense why you think I've been successfully refuted. :) For example, why must you continue to misrepresent Spurgeon himself on the matter of regeneration? YES, that's right -- SPURGEON. Have a read:
“COMING to Christ” is a very common phrase in Holy Scripture. It is used to express those acts of the soul wherein leaving at once our self righteousness, and our sins, we fly unto the Lord Jesus Christ, and receive his righteousness to be our covering, and his blood to be our atonement. Coming to Christ, then, embraces in it repentance, self-negation, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and it sums within itself all those things which are the necessary attendants of these great states of heart, such as the belief of the truth, earnestness of prayer to God, the submission of the soul to the precepts of God’s gospel, and all those things which accompany the dawn of salvation in the soul. Coming to Christ is just the one essential thing for a sinner’s salvation. He that cometh not to Christ, do what he may, or think what he may is yet in “the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity.” Coming to Christ is the very first effect of regeneration. No sooner is the soul quickened than it at once discovers its lost estate, is horrified thereat, looks out for a refuge, and believing Christ to be a suitable one, flies to him and reposes in him (emphasis mine). Where there is not this coming to Christ, it is certain that there is as yet no quickening; where there is no quickening, the soul is dead in trespasses and sins, and being dead it cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
SOURCE: Sermon 183 on Human Inability.
How could he be ANY clearer? How, I ask?
I guess I'm done now. I do hope you'll grant me the favor of interacting with that quote. Otherwise, I see little use of my ever returning here, as it appears that this blog may be little more than a propoganda machine. I do hope I am in error on that last sentence.
SDG,
DH
SPURGEON & AUTHORITY
pat said...
why is spurgeon the source of authority.
Spurgeon is the "source" due to his being misrepresented, misinterpreted, misapproriated, mangled, mutilated, and otherwise mishandled by just about EVERY Hybrid Calvinist on the Internet, and it is about time someone revealed someting about him which is consistent with the truth.
Spurgeon was a "Gospel" preacher first and foremost, and he preached to lost souls and won them to Christ with what he called the "simple Gospel."
If Spurgeon ever used the pedo-regenerationist shibboleth, "ordo salutis," I have yet to come upon it.
If he ever said one is "born again before faith," I have yet to see it.
He loved D. L. Moody, and had Moody preach for him because they shared the SAME GOSPEL and believed in winning souls. Most of the Hybrid Calvinists who "think they like Spurgeon" do not share Spurgeon's love for Moody, do they?
Iain Murray of Banner of Truth has "taken the lead" in criticizing Moody and in criticizing Spurgeon for having anything to do with Moody.
It is said that the spider which gets poison from plants and the honey bee which gets that which makes honey -- both get these from the very same plants.
That seems to be the case with Hybrid Calvinists. They get just enough from Spurgeon to manufacture doctrinal poison out of the snippets they get from him.
-- Bob L. Ross
SPROUL -- SEMI-PELAGIAN
David Hewitt said...
Here is the matter about Regeneration that R.C. Sproul and others believe (emphasis mine):
The logical priority of regeneration in Reformed theology rests on the doctrine of total depravity or moral inability. Because fallen man is morally unable to incline himself by faith to Christ, regeneration is a logical necessity for faith to occur. If we were to posit that faith precedes regeneration, then we would be assuming that unregenerate people, while still in an unregenerate state, have the moral ability to exercise faith. If the unregenerate can exercise faith, then it follows clearly that they are not fallen to the degree of moral inability, as claimed by classical Augustinian and Reformed theology. This would involve an Arminian or semi-Pelagian view of the fall.
SOURCE: R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 193.
BOB'S COMMENT:
Sproul is here plainly ADMITTING by this "logic" that he does not believe that the "DEAD" hear the voice of the Son of God and live!
He has to have them "alive" before they hear the voice of the Son of God. This is semi-Pelagianism -- the sinner, according to Sproul, must FIRST have "ability" restored to him in order to be "able" to hear.
This denies the power of the Word and Spirit to raise the DEAD sinner -- like the DEAD DRY BONES -- to life.
This is why Sproul teaches "regeneration before faith," for he does not believe the Word and Spirit are powerful enough to create faith in the DEAD sinner, as God did in the case of the Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37.
True Creedal Calvinism teaches that the DEAD hear the Gospel, and by the power of the Spirit upon that Word (John 6:63), they come forth in faith. -- Bob L. Ross
Mr. Ross:
Sproul is here plainly ADMITTING by this "logic" that he does not believe that the "DEAD" hear the voice of the Son of God and live!
That's not what he meant by logic. He meant "logical order" versus "temporal order." It's a lot like the lapsarian argument. Both Infralapsarians and Supralapsarians agree that God's decrees were before the foundation of the world. However, they profess a different logical order to them. There is no temporal difference (since this is before time), but there is a logical difference, or a difference in priority you might say.
In the computer world, there is a term "logical processor" that was used a few years ago when Intel introduced their "hyper-threading" technology. What that was about is in one CPU (computer processor) you could have two LOGICAL processors. The computer would be able to process two commands simultaneously, though there would be only one physical processor.
In the same way that the lapsarian argument goes, the regeneration argument goes. Temporally speaking, there is no difference. Logically speaking, however, the New Birth takes place before faith, because faith is from God, and therefore comes under the umbrella of regeneration. Coming to Christ is the first effect of regeneration then in that sense.
SDG,
David Hewitt
NOT REALLY "BEFORE" FAITH?
David Hewitt said...
Mr. Ross:
Sproul is here plainly ADMITTING by this "logic" that he does not believe that the "DEAD" hear the voice of the Son of God and live!
That's not what he meant by logic. He meant "logical order" versus "temporal order."
BOB'S COMMENT:
So you are saying that "regeneration" DOES NOT REALLY precede faith in actual experience, right?
Well, that's fine by me. That is all that we have been saying. That one is not "born again before faith."
Thanks for clearing that up. Now if you can get Sproul to say that, you will have proved you are as good at miracles as Benny Hinn! -- Bob
Mr Ross, I think you finally understand what I've been trying to say!
So you are saying that "regeneration" DOES NOT REALLY precede faith in actual experience, right?
Well, that's fine by me. That is all that we have been saying. That one is not "born again before faith."
Thanks for clearing that up. Now if you can get Sproul to say that, you will have proved you are as good at miracles as Benny Hinn! -- Bob
Well, for all practical purposes, yes! There isn't really a time difference, if at all. However, faith comes from Regeneration, so there is a logical order.
James White agrees with this, by the way. :)
I strongly suspect that R.C. Sproul does too, if what I said is correct.
I repeat what I've said before -- this WHOLE THING is little more than a big misunderstanding.
SDG,
DH
Bob it would really be nice if you would stop speaking for the dead (Spurgeon) and the living (Sproul) as though you know their heart and mind. You so misinterpret everyone you speak about. Speak for yourself if you have something to say and leave others out of it. We are constantly having to redirect you and correct you and never get to the heart of the matter which should be about you and Charles and the beliefs you two have that are contrary to Calvinist. If the discussion was to be with the gentlemen you are constantly talking about then get them to sign on or stop your slander.
anonymous, Hello!
You said, If the discussion was to be with the gentlemen you are constantly talking about then get them to sign on or stop your slander.
There has been no slander. RC Sproul says in his study bible,
"Infants can be born again, although the faith that they exercise cannot be visible as that of adults."
He wrote the notes in his bible, how is it "slander" to repeat them?
Charles
D.R., Hello!
You say, Are you kidding me Charles -- John the Baptist? You bring up a pre-crucifixion example.
So you deny that pedo-baptists say that John the Baptist was born again from his mother's womb?
Do you also deny that Sproul's study bible says, "Infants can be born again, although the faith that they exercise cannot be visible as that of adults."?
D.R., I'm not sure you know what Reformed theology really is. Have you been imbibing any of that White Lightn'ing that is going around?
Brother Bob Ross has started a new series on Hardshell Baptists which I will be reprinting on The Calvinist Flyswatter. I strongly suggest you read it. It will help you understand the origins and dangers of the "born again before faith" theology.
Charles
SAVE YOUR BREATH
Anonymous said...
Bob it would really be nice if you would stop speaking for the dead (Spurgeon) and the living (Sproul) as though you know their heart and mind.
Unfortunately, Anonie, you are a little out of tune with reality.
Circumstantially, I have been somewhat of a "voice" for Mr. Spurgeon since the Lord placed his works into my hands in 1955 and later providentially led me to reprint them. Now they are not only in printed form, they are on CD-ROM, on the Internet, and are even carried around in devices so small they fit the palm of the hand -- such as a man in my store yesterday demonstrated to me.
For years it has been my pleasure and joy to "speak" for Mr. Spurgeon to those who have questions about him. Also, it has been my unpleasant task of disentangling his name from abuse and distortion, such as I have been doing on this website, thanks to my friend, Charles. I pledged long ago that the "thieves and robbers" and "lunatics" who are not confined to institutions would not get away with mingling the name of Spurgeon with unsavoury and corrupt causes, doctrines, and practices. I am "jealous" for his name for he was "jealous" for the Gospel and the truth. To the best of my ability and knowledge of Spurgeon's life and works, I have endeavoured to keep my pledge. I have defended him against all the perverters, distorters, abusers, and other illicite and exploitive entrepreneurs who have ever come down the pike in my direction.
As for Sproul, Charles has sufficiently replied to your remarks. Sproul is a pedo-regenerationist, a baby baptizer, an advocate of "born again before faith," and a pedobaptist parasite who siphons money from the Baptists to promote unBaptistic propaganda -- all of which is on the record, in his publications. If Sproul wants to dispute anything written about him and his unscriptural doctrine and practice, Charles has demonstrated that this site is open. Let him show up and complain, if he has a gripe. Otherwise, who commissioned you to be his public advocate? -- Bob L. Ross
A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE
David Hewitt said...
There isn't really a time difference, if at all. However, faith comes from Regeneration, so there is a logical order.
No, David, that is not what I am saying at all. It is foreign to what I am saying. There is a big difference.
Faith comes "in" regeneration.
"Born" is the more frequent scriptural terminology, and faith is said to be "born" in 1 John 5:4.
It is not "born of [out of] regeneration," but it is "born of [ek, out of] God," specifically of the Spirit of God who uses the Word of God who gives birth to faith.
"In" the Spirit's using the Word of God in the Dead sinner, faith is what is "born" or given "in" that Divine creation.
It seems to me that "from" would imply that faith is "after" an imaginery something which is called "regeneration" which has no real existence except in the mind polluted by the "ordo paludal" of pedo-regenerationists.-- Bob L. Ross
GREATEST BAPTIST "CALVINIST" WAS'
SAVED UNDER ARMINIAN PREACHING!
Bob to Charles:
Do the Hybrid Calvinists really like C. H. Spurgeon, Charles?
Consider the following, which you will probably never see on a Hybrid Calvinist website:
As we have seen, the Lord used an Arminian Methodist layman to preach a brief message on Isaiah 45:22 and to specifically call on young Spurgeon to "Look and Live."
Spurgeon looked and was saved "in a moment," he said, despite the "ordo paludal."
While Spurgeon became a theoretical Creedal Calvinist, he was used of the Lord to preach the Gospel to call sinners to repentance and faith, and thousands were saved.
Spurgeon was known to use "The Sinner's Prayer."
Spurgeon loved the hymn, "Just As I Am," and made it popular by putting it in his "Our Own Hymnbook," urging its use in evangelistic and revival meetings.
Spurgeon used the "after-meeting" and "inquiry room" to deal with concerned souls.
He sponsored an Evangelistic Association which used evangelistic methods to bring about converts to Christ.
He sponsored missions all over London, designed to make converts to Christ.
Spurgeon promoted D. L. Moody, and had Moody hold evanglistic meetings at the Metropolitan Tabernacle.
Spurgeon promoted child evangelism, insisting that children as young as three years of age could be saved by faith in Christ. The "Child Evangelism Fellowship" was born from Spurgeon's inspiration upon J. Irvin Overholtzer who started CEF.
Spurgeon said he preached the "simple Gospel" to "Dead sinners," like Ezekiel preached to the dead dry bones.
Spurgeon encouraged personal soul-winning by his members "after the service" whom he called his "dogs" who "go after the birds I have wounded."
He used the terms "accept Christ," "decide for Christ," and "give, or open your heart to Christ."
He was happy for the Arminians who preached the Gospel, and welcomed their allegiance during the "Down Grade Controversy."
He often rebuked the "doctrinal brethren" for their "ultraism," and "superfine" theological attitudes.
He said he never tried to put a "Calvinistic creed" upon any one.
He said one could preach the "Doctrines of Grace" and yet not preach the Gospel, and one could preach the Gospel who did not hold the "Doctrines of Grace."
I have been reading his works since 1953, and I have yet to see him refer to the darling "ordo salutis" of the pedo-regenerationists.
Charles -- do you think our Hybrid CalvInist brethren really like C. H. Spurgeon? -- Bob L. Ross
Brother Bob Ross said, Charles -- do you think our Hybrid CalvInist brethren really like C. H. Spurgeon?
The only way they like him is by twisting his words and taking him out of context, as Scott and "Dr." James White have proven.
Bob, the Lord knew what He was doing. He chose to "preserve" Spurgeon through you, and not some hybrid/hyper Calvinist.
If it were not for you Spurgeon would be twisted into something unrecognizable! Your words are now on the Internet and it will be impossible for an honest hybrid to mold Spurgeon into his own image.
If it were not for you, all we would have would be Phil Johnson representing Spurgeon, and Phil is going on the cruise with Steve Camp and "Dr." James White! We have you keeping Phil in line now so hopefully he will not stray too far.
Charles
Post a Comment
<< Home