Monday, May 15, 2006

Dangers In Not Giving Public Invitations

Brother Bob Ross has been a champion in defending the time honored Southern Baptist practice of extending altar calls. In this article, he not only defends the public invitation but says there may be dangers in not giving them.

You will also benefit from reading another of Brother Bob's articles, Public Invitation Used in 1809 During the Life of Baptist Leader, J. L. Dagg.




Two years ago [May 2004] I was engaged in publishing rebuttals to every major article and objection which I found on the Internet against public invitations, or what some call "altar calls."

While writing these rebuttals, it occurred to me that there are serious dangers in not giving invitations in contrast to those alleged dangers about which I was writing.

While it may not be the foremost danger, several writers falsely aligned C. H. Spurgeon on invitations. For instance, one writer alleges that "Charles Spurgeon often warned against the invitation system, even in his public preaching to the lost."

We clearly expressed our opinion about that claim, and even offered a $100 reward for anyone who could substantiate it. That unclaimed reward and offer now appear on our website at the following URL:

At that same link is our article entitled, "C. H. Spurgeon & the "PUBLIC INVITATION SYSTEM" -- DID HE OPPOSE IT'S USE?" as well as another article I wrote in response to Mr. Iain Murray's anti-invitation booklet.

I have clearly demonstrated that it is not justifiable to attach the name of "Spurgeon" to the extreme anti-invitationalism of the likes of Murray, Ernest Reisinger, Fred Zaspel, Erroll Hulse, Jim Ehrhard, Darryl Erkel, G. I. Williamson, Carey Hardy, and other brethren of like thinking.

I believe there are more potential dangers involved in anti-invitationalism than merely the misuse of Spurgeon and the misrepresentation of his practices whereby he obtained professions of faith.

1. The Danger of Division.

Benjamin Keach, in the 1600s, introduced singing in his church. Isaac Marlow was so disturbed by the "innovation" that he published an item against singing, and Keach published a reply to Marlow. Singing prevailed but not without a lot of heated controversy and distasteful division among Baptist brethren.

John Rippon, the successor of Dr. John Gill, introduced the first Baptist Hymnal. Again, there was controversy and division.

William Carey and Andrew Fuller introduced innovative means of implementing foreign missions; again, controversy and division. The same occurred later during the time of Luther Rice.

Some Baptists in the past had division over the use of instrumental music.

I have known of churches and preachers who had splits on such things as women's head coverings, offering plates, communion cups, wine or grape juice in the Lord's Supper, mission boards -- pro and con, Sunday schools -- pro and con, church kitchens -- pro and con, and other alleged "innovations."

Now here comes the anti-public invitation brethren with a similar hobbyhorse. They use the same arguments against public invitations as used against these other alleged "innovations." That leads to the next danger --

2. The Danger of "Canonizing" One Particular Method Which Has No More Biblical Precedent than Other Methods.

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones used the "office system" as opposed to the "public invitation system" for people to confess Christ as Saviour. The invitation system was alleged to be "without biblical precedent," but how would Dr. Jones prove that the "office system" is the scriptural procedure? Does it have biblical precedent?

A student of Christian church history informed me that George Whitefield passed out small pieces of paper to collect the names of those who wanted to confess faith in Christ? Was this the "scriptural procedure"?

If one opposes the public invitation system as being "without precedent in Scripture," is he able to give "book, chapter, and verse" for the particular method he favors? How can one system be rejected if the Scripture is silent in regard to authorizing a particular method?

3. The Danger of Promoting Pharisaism.

The Pharisees made laws where God had not made laws, especially in what they were against. They imposed their own conclusions upon issues on which God had not spoken.
They taught "for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7).

Jesus said, "Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in" (Matthew 23:13).

He said they "strained at a gnat, and swallowed a camel" (Matthew 23:24). The anti-public invitation brethren "strain" at public invitations and swallow the camel of the "born again before faith" theory taught by the likes of Berkhof, Sproul, and Murray.

If there is indeed a LAW that establishes a particular method, where is it found? If there is no such law, then why be like the Pharisees and make one? Is there not a danger of doing this on the part of the anti-public invitation brethren?

4. The Danger of Denying Scriptural Liberty.

There are a number of things believed and practiced by believers which are simply matters of Christian liberty, as taught in Acts 15:28, 29, Romans 14, and elsewhere.

For example, as a matter of liberty (not by commandment) some of the brethren have formed the Founders Ministries.

But can one not inquire, "Where is there a scriptural precedent for the creation of the Founders Ministries, which is an extra-scriptural, post-apostolic organization, said to be formed to 'promote both doctrine and devotion expressed in the Doctrines of Grace,' with a 'Chairman of the Board,' and a Board composed of nine men. Where is this incorporated organization commissioned by the Lord or in Holy Scripture? Who was authorized by precedent in Scripture to select these board members and the Chairman of the Board?"

And may not one ask why is this organization presuming to do the work that the Lord commissioned His own churches to do? If they charge that public invitations are wrong and erroneously select Charles Finney as the innovator, who was the innovator who instigated the Founders? Brother Reisinger?

Do you see the contradiction here? These very brethren are committed to oppose public invitations on the grounds that there is no scriptural precedent for them, but where can they can show scriptural precedent for the Founders organization, officers, and purpose?

If they have the liberty to incorporate such a body, have such a purpose, and select such a board, where is my liberty to practice a public invitation without having them apply their "touch not, taste not, handle not" law against public invitations? Are they not encroaching upon my liberty?

5. They Danger of Creating a Sect.

Sects and cults generally get started by some influential man and his close friends who have placed emphasis upon certain distinguishing peccadilloes and peculiarities regarding doctrine and practice.

Usually, they write a "manual" of some sort -- which of course they deny that it constitutes an authoritative "binding creed." Of course, what they deny in word they nevertheless find a way to put into practice. I could cite example after example of the historical record of such sects and cults. Campbellites, Mormons, Hardshells, and others got started that way.

Are not some of the anti-invitation brethren inviting and encouraging this same type of drift?

The Founders, for instance, have published something on the order of a manual, "Worship, The Regulative Principle and the Biblical Principle of Accommodation," which is defined to be "a must-read for those seeking to bring reformation to the worship of the local church."

I have neither read nor seen the manual (or whatever it is), but I am told by those who have that it more or less "tells the church the right doctrine to believe and how to do things in worship the right way."

Well, if it lives up to that billing, who would dare question it? It is of the same reputation as the "Christian System" production of Mr. Campbell in the 1800s.

And, pray tell, who are the "authorities" who deemed themselves qualified to compose such a manual of faith and practice? -- which allegedly "masterfully defines, explains, and defends the Reformed principle of worship -- the regulative principle. Moreover, the principle is not left in the realm of theory."

Why, the two "Masters in Israel" who were more than mere "theorists" were the authors, Brothers Ernest Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen. Of course, the manual is no doubt endorsed and sanctioned by all the friends of the Founders Ministries.

Is there any danger that such a manual of the "Reformed" faith and order could eventually become another "Christian System," like unto that manual of doctrine and practice composed by Alexander Campbell?

Or, another "Doctrines and Covenant" and "Pearl of Great Price" by Joseph Smith?

Or, another "Old Landmarkism" authored by J. R. Graves, the father of "Landmarkism"?

Or, another "Manuscript Evidence" by Peter Ruckman, written to establish "King James Onlyism"? Who knows -- stranger things happened.

One wonders, what ever happened to our dear old Baptist Confession? Is it not sufficient for the day of evil in which we live? How have we survived in the past without the masterful "Regulative Principle" manual? Has it been brought to the Kingdom for such a time as this?

Now, ALL I AM SAYING IS THIS: Some brethren apparently want to put the yoke of bondage of anti-public invitationalism upon others, but they themselves are engaged in practices and organizations for which they have no scriptural precedent. They exercise their liberty in the practice of their own devices but they censure others who use their liberty in the practice of giving a public invitation.

Is this inconsistency not an attribute common to sects and the cults? -- Bob L. Ross


At Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:28:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

Bob to Charles

I should have included the link to my article entitled, "EVANGELISM AT CHS' TABERNACLE," at --

In a follow-up article which does not appear on that website, I included the following in regard to a meeting at the Tabernacle held by Spurgeon's own Tabernacle Evangelists, W. Y. Fullerto and J. Manton Smith:

In the latter part of 1889, Spurgeon engaged Smith and Fullerton for another week's campaign at the Metropolitan Tabernacle.

The report on this mission was published in Spurgeon's "Notes" column in The Sword and the Trowel magawine of January 1890.

Among the several details related about the first evening, Monday, November 18, in response to the message by Evangelist Fullterton, it is said, "Some few held up their hands in token that they desired the prayers of God's people, and others stayed behind to be spoken to by the workers who were watching for souls" (page 43).

Of the Tuesday evening meeting, it is said, "More seekers than on Monday."

On Wednesday evening, "Many were touched and blessed," and on Thursday evening,
"Subject: 'The Blood of Jesus.' The flock of enquirers, the joyful workers, and even the increased offering, bore witness to the fact that this glorious subject has lost none of its power."

On Friday, "The interest, and the spirituality, steadily increased from meeting to meeting. We are persuaded that only a very small proportion of those who were impressed entered the enquiry-rooms."

On Saturday, "The weather kept clear until some one to two thousand children got in to hear Mr. Smith . . . Speaking of the mission in general, and of Saturday's Children's Meeting in particular, an earnest brother writes: 'I believe many have been turned from the error of theirs ways, and are now "looking unto Jesus." Children of tender age, and folk of ripened years, have felt the softening, subduing, attractive power of Jesus' love.'"

On Sunday, November 24 [1889]: "The Spirit pricked many to the heart; scores rose n different parts of the building, declaring their desire to be Christ's; and afterwards the Lecture-hall was filled with who had been blessed during the week, seekers and workers, another meeting going on at the same time in the Tabernacle. It was most touching, in the quiet meeting in the Lecture-hall, to watch many scores of people rising, one after another, and, in response to the question, whether they would be Christ's, coupled with many admonitions to avoid rashness, saying, 'I will,' 'I will." Few dry eyes were in the meeting."

At the Monday evening prayer meeting: "Several of the workers gave their experiences of the results of the [Smith-Fullerton] meetings, citing interesting cases of conversion which had come under their notice. . . . One of our sisters, who is an earnest worker among the anxious, sends us a few notes of her previous week's experiences: 'I felt that there were so many workers inside the building that I could be of more use outside, speaking to the strangers as they retired to their homes. I determined on this course, because, on several occasions last year, I observed that a much larger number of persons, evidently under deep concern of soul, quietly slipped away than went into the enquiry-rooms. I cannot say how many I spoke to last week; it is not possible for one to do much in this way; it wanted at least a dozen workers. Still, I was much encouraged; for, in almost every case, I got replies of this kind: "Yes, I feel that I shall for ever thank God that I came to this meeting." "I feel a great hope that the Lord will save me." Every night I was there it was glorious; and though I did not give in cards for the cases I tried to help, because anxious ones did not seem to realize their safety in Christ, I am persuaded that a genuine work of grace was done," etc.

'So ends the season of labour; but the days of prayer must be continued. The Word of the Lord has its aftermath." -- From C. H. Spurgeon's magazine, January 1890.

Such reports demonstrate that Spurgeon and his Evangelists used aggressive methods to encourage confessions of faith, conversions, and even special efforts to bring children to the faith of Christ.

While his methods of getting public responses from his hearers were not exactly parallel to some methods today, he nevertheless sought the same end -- open responses to the Gospel by whatever the practical means for the cicumstances.

The image of Spurgeon depicted by the anti-invitationists of today is a complete distortion of his evangelistic attitude and efforts. -- Bob L. Ross

At Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:13:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Bob to Charles

I noticed in the Baptist Press today that Boyce College at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has hired a basketball coach.

In view of the demand by some of the Hybird Calvinists for "scriptural precedent" for church and evangelistic meeting invitations, I wonder how a basketball program at Boyce College passed the litmus test?

Is this consistent with the "regulative principle" so highly prized by the Founders?

At Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:14:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Come down to earth ! Where is the Scripture for having a convention ? You are trying to shoot down Founders but take the dagger out of your own eye and see that most of the SBC convention stuff has no grounds for scripture.
Also, where is the Scripture for giving " Altar Calls" following the message.Where is music playing softly after a message found in Scripture? Where is the method of " If you will repeat this sinners prayer after me"? Where, Where, Where ?
We should be inviting people to respond to Christ during the preaching of our message and also telling them if they want to talk to someone about Christ then to contact the church or go to a certain room after the service to talk with some Pastors about Salvation. I'm all for that and I do that as a Pastor but I do not give Altar Calls!


At Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:24:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Bob to Charles

One of my email readers related this to me about invitations:

At the SBC church I now attend, we have done away with “altar calls” and replaced them with what we call “the Good News Room.”  Our thinking on this is that it requires the person to make an informed decision rather than respond to emotional appeals.  They must purposely leave the service when it is over and walk down the hall to the room to speak one-on-one with a counselor.  Further, our counselors often tell people (after hearing them out) that “they are not ready” and encourage them to keep attending or give them some further material to read as a follow up.


Bob's comment:

First, there is no "scriptural precedent" for this type of practice, so it is no argument against the public invitation to confess Christ. The ruse that it lends itself to "an informed decision" can be handled as easily during a public invitation as in a so-called "Good News Room."

But what is an "informed decision"? The Gospel is very simple, and does not need an elaborate theological understanding thereof by a person to confess Christ as Saviour. He can learn more in due time.

In surveying the accounts of conversions in the New Testament, we do not find any particular "order" as to the circumstances under which they took place, nor any special attention given to "an informed decision."

The jailer was converted in an unusual place; Zaccheus came down from being up a tree; a thief on a cross was saved in his dying hour; Philip "buttonholed" the Ethiopian in his chariot; Lydia was "quietly" converted while listening to Paul preach; multitudes were saved in the great Pentecost experience in Acts 2; Nicodemus, we think, was converted from hearing the Lord's words in John 3:1-18; the publican was justified when he prayed, "God be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13).

The one essential piece of information was acceptance of Christ. Everything else for a lost person is peripheral.

I don't recall an instance in Scripture where anyone was turned away as "not being ready." It seems to frequently occur that children who want to confess Christ are sometimes not encouraged to do so by hesitant adults. Spurgeon told of such an instance in one of his comments on child conversion:

"A child had loved the Savior for some two or three years, and she desired to make a confession of her faith. She begged of her mother that she might be baptized. The mother said that she thought she was too young.

"The child went to bed brokenhearted, and in the morning a great tear stood in her eye. She had joined the church triumphant above! 

"Do not let your child ever have to complain of you that you will not believe in its truthful love to Jesus. Do you expect perfection in a child before it joins the church?" (The Children and Their Hosannas, preached in 1884 (MTP, Vol. 30, page 325).

I recall another instance where Spurgeon told about a lady who wanted him to pray for her salvation. She had heard the Gospel scores of times, yet did not commit herself to Christ. Spurgeon refused to pray for her, and he explained to the lady that if she would not believe the Gospel, his prayers would not be of any use. She was so startled that she saw the error of her way and immediately became a believer.

Not "ready"? Who on earth is not ready? Are not all sinners and in need of salvation? The Gospel comes to men as sinners, not as requiring some kind of "preparationism" which makes them "ready." That smacks of salvation by works.

As Spurgeon has so clearly delineated in his sermon, The Warrant of Faith, the only "warrant" for believing the Gospel is that one is a sinner and is commanded to believe.

"The warrant for a sinner to believe in Christ is not in himself in any sense or in any manner, but in the fact that he is commanded there and then to believe on Jesus Christ. . . .sinner, whoever thou mayst be, God now commands thee to believe in Jesus Christ. . . .

"This is his commandment: he does not command thee to feel anything, or be anything, to prepare thyself for this."  (MTP, 1863, pages 531, 540).


At Wednesday, May 17, 2006 6:17:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Dear Charles:

I took a suggestion to listen earlier today to James White's DL broadcast with Tom Ascol, which took place yesterday, sponsored by the "White Lightnin' Hybrid Calvinist Distillery & Mfg. Co., Phoenix, Arizona."

As I understand it, both these gentlemen are Anti-Invitationists and believe that they were "born again before faith," even though they were presumably saved under Arminian preaching.

Among other amusing items, James and Tom sounded a lot like a couple of Campbellite debaters in their braggadocio and embellishment of one another.

Here were some other Campbellite traits which I recall:

(1) Neither James nor Tom would say that they know "any hyper-Calvinists among Southern Baptists." I have noticed that both Campbellites and Hyper-Calvinists usually say they do not knowany Campbellties and Hyper-Calvinists. So their not knowing any Hypers is like unto the Campbellites who say they don't know any Campbellites.

(2) They talked along the lines which suggested they were trying to "restore" the Gospel. Tom referred to Baptists as having "lost the gospel," and this would suggest the need for "restoration." This theme of "losing" and "restoring" the Gospel is also a similarity to Campbellites, as that is what they claim they were doing.

But why do James and Tom need the Gospel? With the elect being "born again before faith," is there really any need for the Gospel?

(3) The Campbellites originally used the word "Reformed" to describe their movement early on, which is another similarity to what James and Tom say about their work.

(4) Tom referred to James' "ministry" of "debating," which is another similarity to the Campbellites who think "debating" is part of their ministry. Who knows, James may become the "Alexander Campbell" of the current "reformation movement" while Tom plays a complementary role similar to Barton W. Stone who united his movement with Campbell's due in part to Campbell's debating success.

(5) James seems to think this debate will perhaps make a number of proselytes to his cause, which is Hybrid Calvinism. Again, this is a similarity to the Campbellites who used debates as a means of proselyting a following from both the Presbyterians and Baptists in the 19th century who were ignorant of their Confessions of Faith.

I would not be surprised if James made some proselytes, for the Caners do not impress me as understanding the real vulnerability of James and Ascol's Hybrid Calvinism -- which is their heresy of "born again before faith."

If the Caners had a grasp of that, they could use the Baptist Confessions and Southern Baptist scholars such as Boyce, Dagg, Carroll, Broadus, and others to tan James' hide and dispatch him off to Hardshellville where he belongs. You see how James avoids us, and it is because he knows we have his "number."

-- Bob L. Ross

At Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:46:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Anonymous said...

Come down to earth ! Where is the Scripture for having a convention ?

Bob's comment:

Your breath has a Kudzu odor. Are you from Georgia?

You seem to miss the point. The point is, if it demanded that public invitations have "scriptural precedent," what about one for basketball at Boyce?

Why should I pull for either James/Tom or the Caners? I don't agree with either side. -- Bob

At Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:57:00 PM, Anonymous Jon said...

It is a diversionary tactic. One that is designed to divert you from blogging so that the gospel can actually be spread. At least one person dies in this world every second of the day. By the time one of these posts are finished, hundreds of people have died, most of them without hearing the gospel.

The fact of the matter is, there are some you call heretics who beleive people are saved before they are "saved" who do not waste time blogging and share the same gospel as you do.

So, I'm trying to divert you from a minor (pedo-regeneration) and help you focus your attention on a major (people are dying and going to hell while you cause rifts in the body of Christ).

It's just not healthy to be so negative and, quite honestly, hateful towards people who love Christ as much as you.

So, the faculty of SBTS may not get an "out", but certainly they have done more for the advancement of the kingdom than you or I have by having this discussion on a blog site?

Let's fight bigger battles (and not on blogging sites), that's all I'm saying.

At Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:25:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


jon said...

So, I'm trying to divert you from a minor (pedo-regeneration) and help you focus your attention on a major (people are dying and going to hell while you cause rifts in the body of Christ).

Yes, and a lot of those who are "dying and going to hell" may be multitudes who were taught by "Reformed" preachers such as R. C. Sproul and Ligon Duncanc that they were "regenerated" as infants!

I hardly see how you can really be serious, calling pedo-regenerationism a "minor." Is this what they teach at SBTS? Personally, I know of no heresy that is any more dangerous than pedo-regeneration and its fruits. No Arminian doctrine I know is as dangerous as the false doctrine of pedo-regeneration.

Romanism, Episcoplianism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, and any other pedo-regenerationist communion which teaches that babies are regenerated are all preaching "another gospel, which is not another." If babies are regenerated in infancy, it renders the Gospel as the means of salvation a false doctrine.

You should read C. H. Spurgeon's most famous sermon against "Baptismal Regeneration" in Volume 10, Sermon #573 of the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit in which he speaks of the "great error" of the idea of infant regeneration. While in that sermon he was particularly addressing the error of the Church of England, he held the same views against all other pedo-regenerationists of whatever communion if they taught what he referred to as salvation by "hereditary desecent" (page 38, 39, Volume 18, MTP).

I can only surmise that you are more inclined to defend the compromise at SBTS with pedo-regenerationists than you are interested in defense of the Gospel of Christ.

You need not lecture us about "dividing the body of Christ" for it was long ago divided by those who advocate the heresy of pedo-regeneration and filled the churches with unregenerate members -- more unregenerates than even Jim Eliff of the Founders could account for!--Bob L. Ross

At Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:14:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Jon, Hello!

You said, Jon said...
It is a diversionary tactic. One that is designed to divert you from blogging so that the gospel can actually be spread. At least one person dies in this world every second of the day. By the time one of these posts are finished, hundreds of people have died, most of them without hearing the gospel.

The fact of the matter is, there are some you call heretics who beleive people are saved before they are "saved" who do not waste time blogging and share the same gospel as you do.

Jon, would you please visit all the Reformed, "born again before faith" blogs such as the Founders and post the same comment you posted here.

After you have finished posting on their blogs, please let me know.


At Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:16:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob, Hello!

Anonymous sounds very much like our friend Scott Morgan.

Scott said his wife didn't want him posting here. She must be OK with him spending time on the Flounders blog because I noticed he posted several comments there recently.

Maybe Scott decided to post anonymously on The Flyswatter to keep peace in the household?


At Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:17:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Bob L. Ross said...


Charles, I forgot to mention that one of the callers to the White-Ascol Show called them his "heroes," and heaped all manner of praise upon White in particular. The caller name was "Shane," and he said he has all of White's books and wants to get them autographed. He was thoroughly drunk on the "White Lightnin'."

Shane revealed, however, that he left the Baptists and joined the pedo-regenerationists.

He also mentioned that the same was true of another companion by the name "Mike" who is an associate pastor. They both left the Baptists for the pedo-regenerationists and both of them are greatly infatuated with the "White Lightnin'."

James seemed highly pleased that these ex-Baptists were such devoted consumers of the "White Lightnin,'" and it simply brought a few chortles from James and Tom that they had left the Baptists. There was no concern about the fact they had left the Baptists for the pedo-regenerationist camp. Now, as pedo-regenerationists, these men will be teaching their offspring that the offspring inherit regeneration as a covenant blessing and that regeneration is received in babyhood, or even before birth (per John Frame).

So in addition to the Hardshell Baptists for whom James has preached, the Great Exegeeter can add these pedo-regenerationists to the list of those who are grateful consumers of the "White Lightnin'."

Maybe this show should have been called the "Tom and Jimmy" show -- sorta like the cartoon, "Tom and Jerry." -- Bob L. Ross

At Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:31:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Charles said...

Anonymous sounds very much like our friend Scott Morgan.

Scott said his wife didn't want him posting here. She must be OK with him spending time on the Flounders blog because I noticed he posted several comments there recently.

Bob's comment:

Scott doesn't get beat-up on the Founders' blog, but over here he gets blackeyes and knots on his head. No wife likes to see her husband take a licking like Scott takes over here. He can't even open his mouth without putting his foot into it and knocking out two or three teeth in the process. -- Bob

At Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:30:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...


Charles said...

Anonymous sounds very much like our friend Scott Morgan.

I had some emails awhile back from one who sounded much like James

Scott and James at least seem to have something in common -- at least, to my knowledge -- and that is, they won't say who the Arminian preacher was under whom they walked an aisle and made public confession of faith.

Did you ever notice that nearly all of the Hybrid Calvinists who relate their salvation experiences relate that they received their "effecual calling" and "regeneration" under an Arminian ministry which used the "invitation system"? The iMonk called attention to this on his website a few years ago.

Wonder if the Caners will ask James about whose ministry was responsible for James' getting saved -- "instrumentally" speaking? And what about Brother Tom Ascol, who portrays himself as a "clod" as a debater? Under whom did Tom get saved?

-- Bob Ross

At Friday, May 19, 2006 6:09:00 PM, Anonymous sdcatc said...

Amen! Charles about Jon. He needs cut and paste his comment from here and take it to these other forums you mentioned.

Another point I'd like to make is that the Founders and other Reformed blogs are big on not commenting anonymously. How hypocritical of them to come over here anonymously. Are they afraid their Reformed buddies will look down upon them or chastise them for reading here? I don't think their anonymity is so they can be harsh or mean because they already act that way openly.


Post a Comment

<< Home