Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Southern Baptist Founder Refutes Founders Regarding Public Invitations

In this article, Brother Bob Ross refutes another myth put out by the "born again before faith" and/or extreme and/or hyper and/or hybrid and/or Reformed Calvinist crowd, namely, that public invitations were an invention of Charles Finney. These people are the #1 distorters of Baptist history and theology on the scene today and I'm glad Brother Bob is here to set the record straight.

Pity Iain H. Murray and the Founders Ministry (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry). All those books, journals, and web articles have to be recycled thanks to the diligent efforts of Bob Ross.

Charles

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From:Pilgrimpub@aol.com
Subject: PUBLIC INVITATIONS circa 1809 [05/07--2006]

PUBLIC INVITATION USED IN 1809 DURING THE LIFE OF BAPTIST LEADER, J. L. DAGG [05/07--2006]

Several months ago, I wrote several replies to anti-public invitation articles which appear on the Internet. Among the objections that some offer is the false claim that "the practice of publicly inviting people to come forward at the conclusion of a Gospel sermon, did not begin until the time of the 19th century revivalist, Charles G. Finney (1792-1895), who was probably the first to employ this method" (Daryl Erkel).

That this is not the case was again reinforced recently when I was reading the Autobiography of John L. Dagg (1794-1884). Here is an account given by Dagg of a church service wherein an "invitation" was given when he was 14 years of age, which would have been in 1809, many years before Finney even started preaching.

From the AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF REV. JOHN L. DAGG, pages 9, 10:

>>.
Accordingly, on the first of January, 1809, before I was fifteen years old, I became the master of a neighborhood school. . . .

Sometime afterwards I was present at a meeting of the Long Branch church when invitation was given, to those who had hope in Christ, to come forward, and relate their experience. I felt strongly moved to accept the invitation, with others who presented themselves; but considerations, with the sufficiency of which I was not wholly satisfied, held me back. At length I adopted an unauthorized method of determining my case. Among the persons who had been expected to offer themselves to the church that day, was an individual who had been my school-mate. I decided, if he went forward, to accompany him.

Several related their experiences and were received by the church; but as my school-mate was not of the number, I felt, perhaps with some joy, released from taking up the cross. But when the pastor rose to dismiss the meeting, the young man started from his seat, and asked permission to tell what the Lord had done for him. This was now unexpected to me and I was now unable to rally, for the performance of duty. I left the meeting unhappy; and many an unhappy day of spiritual darkness and conflict followed, before I publicly professed Christ.
>>

While anti-invitationists would no doubt find some "differences" between this invitation and others to which they object, nevertheless the fact remains this was an INVITATION for the purpose of CONFESSING Christ as Savior, and it was practiced by Baptists before the days of Charles G. Finney.

This is just another example of the misinformation which is frequently offered by those who are influenced by Hybrid Calvinists and pedo-regenerationists such as Iain Murray who campaign against certain methods used in evangelism. -- Bob L. Ross

49 Comments:

At Tuesday, May 09, 2006 7:09:00 AM, Blogger nickg said...

I would not say that I am opposed to public invitations in principle, but I do find them problematic for a number of reasons.

First, they tend to send a message that salvation is based upon the decision of the sinner rather than the decision of the Savior. I'm sure you have heard as many stories as I have of people who have responded to multiple invitations, sure that each successive instance was the one that worked and just as sure that the previous response was no good. That is no way for a person to feel about the promise of God! I think it would be better to disciple people to understand that salvation is the free gift of God based upon His initiated work in the lives of sinners and that the only right response to that work of love is faith in Christ and a life of bearing the fruit of the Gospel. After all, Jesus commanded His people to "make disciples" not "tally up converts" or "confessers".

Second, I have no doubt you are correct, Mr. Ross, that Finney was not the originator of the method, but the ways he distorted and abused the method (peer pressure, psychological trickery, etc.) are still temptations for any preacher who seeks to have his ministry validated by numbers. I don't suppose I need to remind anyone who participates in this blog that numbers of converts or followers are not a sure test of God's blessing upon a method or ministry. After all, teachers of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and atheistic naturalism have several billion followers among them.

Third, the invitation method of evangelism was pioneered in a completely different cultural context. In the 19th century, Christendom still reigned in the West. The Bible and Christianity were common stakes that held up the cultural tent that everyone lived under. Even those who were not committed Christians and those who opposed Christianity still a basic concept of the major claims and teaching of the Bible and many even had some familiarity with doctrinal matters. Terms such as "God", "sin", "the fall", "salvation", "grace", "righteousness", "good", "evil", and many others were primarily invested with biblical meanings. Today, of course, hardly anyone would agree on what those terms mean, if they have any idea at all. The point is, it almost always takes longer than one presentation/sermon in this cultural context to introduce someone to the person, message, and claims of Christ in a way that makes sense to them and breaks through the stereotypes and other cultural baggage that people have with regard to Christianity.

Fourth, and related to the last point, it is far less common today for people to struggle with guilt (i.e., a realization of their sin) than it is for them to struggle with lonliness, bondage (whether to addictive substances or to activities like sexual practices), or shame. This is because very few people realize that there is an objective standard of righteousness that they have broken/fallen short of. But many people feel isolated from others in their peer group or community. Many people try to relieve that isolation by engaging in something that either diverts their mind (like drugs, alcohol) or gives them pleasure (like food, or sex). And many people believe that they are the only ones who problematic aspects to their character and so they are ashamed to share their struggles with others. It seems to me that the invitation strategy, when it is working at its best, it aimed at dealing with peoples' guilt. For it acts like a courtroom scene where the guilty person is declared and assured to be innocent on account of the person and work of Christ. To be sure: the Bible speaks of salvation in these terms. But the Bible speaks to so much more of the fallen human condition! People dealing with lonliness, bondage, and shame need to find themselves as part of a community of fellow needy sinners who are all being redeemed and restored by God's grace. They need to know that they are part of an on-going story of God's work in His world to bring about a renewal of the creation which He made and loved because He still loves people in spite of their shameful existence. In sum, people need to be discipled and shepherded into the faith that the Church confesses in Christ because their problems are more than a simple decsion after an invitation can fix.

From my own experience: I can look to a particular day, and even moment, when I believe that the Holy Spirit finally produced a work of grace in my heart that enabled me to put my faith in Christ. But my Christian life since then has not been a steady climb to glory. There have been many a day when I have felt, in competition with Paul, that I was the chief of sinners. Thus, I am glad that I have much more than my own weak and timid "decision" or "confession" to stand upon when I consider my salvation. (As I pointed out in the beginning, I believe the invitation technique must--explicitly or implicitly--emphsize the person's decision as the decisive factor in one's salvation.) Rather, in the midst of my sin and unbelief I know that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is ever righteous and faithful and He will not deny His promise to me no matter how often I deny Him.

 
At Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:12:00 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Bob,

As usual you just don't get it!
Where in Scripture do you see the metodology of a Pastor in Ephesus, Corinth, or anywhere invite men to come to the front after the gospel was preached? Please list the scripture for us?
By the way Dagg refutes " General Baptist Theology"! So he is not your buddy! You really need to sit and learn from Nettles, Mohler, and all of us. We will show you that you need to let Scripture speak and not men taken out of context!

 
At Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:18:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

DAGG AS "WALLPAPER" ON FOUNDERS
WEBSITE

Bob to Charles


I quoted this from J. L. Dagg (1794-1884) about invitations from a book published by Gano Books, but it is also on the Founders Ministries' website:

http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_bio.html

This demonstrates how the Founders pretend to believe like Dagg (and others), but really are inconsistent. They use the photos of these great men as wallpaper when in fact on many significant doctrines they do not believe what these men believed and practiced.

Also, Charles, we might again remind the readers about what Dr. Dagg believed about faith in relation to regeneration, which is also found on the Founders' website, despite their disagreement with Dr. Dagg:

DR. DAGG ON THE WORD IN REGENERATION

Dr. Dagg goes way back to the 18th century, as he died in 1884 at age 90. He was around when the Hardshell Baptists started their doctrine of regeneration by the Spirit alone, but here is what Dr. Dagg said on the SPIRIT'S USE OF THE WORD OF GOD AS THE MEANS in regeneration:

>>
We know, from the Holy Scriptures, that God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul. "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." Love to God necessarily implies knowledge of God, and this knowledge it is the province of truth to impart. . . .

What accompanying influence the Holy Spirit uses, to render the word effectual, we cannot explain: but Paul refers to it, when he says, "Our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost." -- "but in the demonstration of the Spirit, and with power."

The term regeneration is sometimes used in a comprehensive sense, as including the whole formation of the Christian character. At other times it is used for the first production of divine love in the heart. In the latter sense, the work is instantaneous. There is a moment known only to God, when the first holy affection exists in the soul. Truth may enter gradually, and may excite strong affections in the mind, and may for a time increase the hatred of God which naturally reigns in the heart. So Paul says, "Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence." But, in his own time and manner, God, the Holy Spirit, makes the WORD effectual in producing a new affection in the soul: and, when the first movement of LOVE to God exists, the first throb of spiritual LIFE commences.

FAITH is necessary to the Christian character; and must therefore PRECEDE REGENERATION, when this is understood in its widest sense. Even in the restricted sense, in which it denotes the beginning of the spiritual life, FAITH, in the sense in which James uses the term, may PRECEDE.
>>

He then goes on to discuss the difference between that "spiritual" faith and the "faith" which exists beforehand, which is sometimes called "natural," "intellectual," or "historical faith."

Later on, he says --

>>
This change, by which true love to God is produced, results from the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, accompanying his WORD, and making it effectual. It was this direct influence which rendered the WORD so effectual on the day of Pentecost, which opened Lydia's heart, so that she attended to the things that were spoken by Paul;--which gave the increase when Paul planted, and Apollos watered, -- and which has ever brought the WORD to the heart, in demonstration of the Spirit, and with power. . . .

By the will of God, the TRUTH has its regenerating and sanctifying power; for he works in us to will and to do, according to his pleasure. It belongs to the Holy Spirit, in the economy of grace, to produce divine life in the soul, as he brooded over the face of the waters, at creation, reducing the chaotic mass to order, and filling it with life.

He is pleased to WORK WITH MEANS; and he EMPLOYS THE TRUTH AS HIS INSTRUMENT OF OPERATION. This INSTRUMENT he wields at his pleasure, and he renders it effectual by his divine power:

"My WORD shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."[159]
>>

Dr. Dagg believed that spiritual faith actually "precedes" in the so-called "ordo salutis."
-- Bob L. Ross

 
At Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:26:00 PM, Blogger Eye said...

Brother Bob,

Thank you for all of your well - documented research and the knowledge you bring to the table to those willing to face the truth. I always look forward to seeing your next post. Keep up the good work...

In Him,

Eye

 
At Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:21:00 PM, Blogger Scott said...

OH Bob,

Since I have already shown that your statement " No Baptist Confessions teach Regeneration precedes saving faith" to be wrong such as the NHC and 1689 I thought I would show another fine Baptist theologian teaching that Regeneration does precede Saving faith.His name is John Brine who was greately influenced by Dr. Gill. I know you have heard of him .
First, I want to be clear that I don't agree with John Brine on all theology and some points about Regeneration( I believe in the preached word as means that God uses along with the Holy Spirit).
Please notice what John Brine says in his work A TREATISE ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS( ON THE SPIRIT'S WORK IN REGENERATION; AND ALSO IN CONVERSION AND SANCTIFICATION)CHAPTER 3 PAGES 48-61.

PG 48 FIRST SENTENCE: REGENERATION PRECEDES, AND MAY BE CONSIDERED AS THE FOUNDATION AND SPRING OF CONVERSION AND SANCTIFICATION. FOR THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE FROM WHICH BOTH ARISE.

Bob you have a real problem with being honest about statements from Calvinistic Baptists and Confessions ! I believe you purposefully try to twist and mislead people! Repent!

I know I have read more Gill and Brine than you have over the years! Please trust me on this. I will admit that you have read more of Spurgeon than I have but you are wrong about Spurgeon. Also, Gill and Brine were more theological than Spurgeon.Spurgeon was probably the better preacher and did a better job in evangelistic methods. Then again how would we both know for sure and my view of the gospel and evangelism methods would be closer to the scripture because I'm not a General Baptist like you. I'm a evangelistic Particular Baptist! Then again your love for Joel Osteen's preaching tells me that the General Baptist of Spurgeons day would have nothing to do with you on supporting Joel! You can " Bank on that"!

Cathcart says of John Brine: The Baptist Encyclopedia volume 1 of 3 pgs 134-135 " Rev. John Brine, ............ He had an enthusiatic love for the doctrines of grace, and next to Dr. Gill, whose early ministrations brought him to Jesus, he was for years THE MOST INFLUENTIAL LEADER IN THE BAPTIST DENOMINATION.
Bob I can assure you majority if not all Calvinistic Baptist in that time believd Regeneration precedes Conversion !

 
At Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:50:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

DID YOU EVER RESPOND?

nickg said...


I would not say that I am opposed to public invitations in principle, but I do find them problematic for a number of reasons.

Bob comments:

I don't think I saw in your comment that you ever responded to a public invitation. If not, when did you publicly make an oral confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and that you had been saved?

Spurgeon, for example, had all those to be baptized to make a public oral confession of their faith in Jesus Christ and of their salvation. He thought that was a good practice, and so do I. No one should be baptized who does not make an oral confession of faith in Christ and of his acceptance of His salvation, even if he has been deluded by Hybrid Calvinists to think he was mysteriously somehow "regenerated" before he ever believed.

Where Hybrid Calvinism is most prevalent, as amongst the pedo-regenerationists and Hardshells, no one is invited to publicly confess that they are believers in the Son of God and have been saved. In fact, I find it common that these groups make a "virtue" out of not believing you have been saved. -- Bob Ross

 
At Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:06:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

THANK GOD FOR US, SCOTT

Scott said...


As usual you just don't get it!
Where in Scripture do you see the metodology of a Pastor in Ephesus, Corinth, or anywhere invite men to come to the front after the gospel was preached? Please list the scripture for us?


Bob's comment:

Scott, you should thank God for Charles and me, as we are probably the only ones who have refuted you and rebuked you for your heresies. One day, if the Lord in His sovereignty, lifts the veil of Hybrid Calvinism off of your deluded mind, you will be moved to pray, "Thank you, Lord, for not letting me be permanently blinded to the truth, and you blessed me to know Charles and Bob who did not fail to give me your Word on these heresies. Thank you for Charles and Bob and what they have meant to me. Forgive me for all the unscriptural things I have thought and said about them. Continue to bless their efforts. In Jesus' name."

You say you want "scripture" for using an invitation, Scott?

Why do you demand "scripture" for an invitation when you don't demand it for dozens of your own practices?

For example, does your church have a building called a "church"? Show me one instance in the Bible where a church ever spent money to build a "church" building.

Does you church spend money to air condition your church building? Scripture please.

Do you use "songbooks"? Scripture please.

Do you use cups and trays in the Lord's supper? Scripture please.

Do you have an indoor "baptistry"? Scripture please.

Do you have a "choir"? Scripture please?

Do you affiliate with an unscriptural organization called "Founders Ministries"? Scripture please?

Are you in an unscriptural organization called the "Southern Baptist Convention"? Scripture please.

Do you subscribe to a "Confession of Faith?" Scripture please?

You know what you sound like, calling for "scripture," Scott? Nothing but a CAMPBELLITE! -- Bob Ross

 
At Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:11:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

THANKS, EYE
Eye said...


Brother Bob,

Thank you for all of your well - documented research and the knowledge you bring to the table to those willing to face the truth. I always look forward to seeing your next post. Keep up the good work... In Him, Eye


Bob's comment:

Thanks, Eye. It is always nice to have one who "confirms" and encourages your efforts, especially when there are those like Scott who are so averse and aberrant. Thank you for posting, and please remember Charles and me in prayer as we seek to present the Truth in contrast to false and Hybrid Calvinism. -- Bob Ross

 
At Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:44:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

SHOWN WHAT?

Scott said...


OH Bob,

Since I have already shown that your statement " No Baptist Confessions teach Regeneration precedes saving faith" to be wrong such as the NHC and 1689
...

I just happened to have been looking at the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 shortly before getting online tonight, and I highlighted the following. In view of Scott's comment, I think it is rather appropriate to mention it here:

Under "God the Holy Spirit," the BF&M says -- "Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ."

Notice, Scott, the sinner is are "called" to the Saviour BEFORE the Spirit "effects regeneration." After being called to Christ, at the same moment the Spirit effects regeneration, the "BELIEVER" is baptized into the Body of Christ."

If you, Scott, say you got "regenerated before faith," then you better look for another Confession that fits your "regeneration"! BF&M won't fit your claim!

Also, under "Salvation," the BF&M says, "Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus."

Now, Scott, if you claim you became a "new creature" before you became a "believer," you better hunt you a Hardshell Confession to match your experience, because you don't find any "new creatures in Christ Jesus" but "BELEIVERS" in the BF&M.

Once more, under "Salvation," the BF&M says, "Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ."

Now, Scott, if you say you got "regenerated" before you had faith, then it follows that you got regenerated without "acceptance of Jesus Christ."

You need to find you another Hardshell Confession to accommodate your being a "regenerated" non-accepter of Jesus Christ!

One last item in the BF&M, which I have mentioned before, but you obviously skipped over it as you "tiptoed thru the Tulips" --

Under "Salvation," the BF&M says,
"Salvation . . . In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration . . . There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."

Now, Scott, since you say you got "regenerated before faith," you seem to have gotten something which is not recognized as "salvation" by the BF&M, for it says "regeneration" is included in salvation, and there is no salvation "apart from faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."

(1) Salvation includes regeneration.

(2) No salvation apart from faith.

(3) Therefore, no faith means no regeneration.

That leaves your "regeneration" out in the cold, Scott. Better find you a Hardshell Baptist Confession which will "fit" your claim that you got "regenerated" without having faith in Christ.

Maybe John Brine can help you, but not the BF&M. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:56:00 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Bob,

I was holding on to this one but I have decided to pull it out and show once again how you purposefully twist and misrepresent men such as James P Boyce on Regeneration. How you skip over these statements is beyond me! My library is full of every major Baptist History work and commentaries and Systematic Theology and Confessions. I say this to point out that you will be corrected when you twist things. I'm sorry that I don't own Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, and Oral Robert books like you sell and have.
James P Boyce said: On page 374 ( Notice how he seperates Regeneration from Conversion) " Yet, after all, the Scriptures also teach that regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by His sovereign will, "WHILE"( PLEASE NOTICE HOW HE SEPERATES THEM AND PUTS REGENERATION BEFORE CONVERSION) conversion is the act of man turning towards God with the new inclination thus given to his heart.

Page 379 Conversion:

THIS IS THE RESULT OF REGENERATION.THE NEW HEART IS PREPARED TO TURN TO GOD AND DOES ACTUALLY SO TURN. WITHOUT REGENERATION, THE SINFULNESS OF MAN KEEPS HIM AWAY FROM GOD, CAUSES HIM TO SET HIS AFFECTIONS UPON SELF AND HIS OWN PLEASURE, AND TO FIND GRATIFICATION IN THINGS WHICH RE OPPOSED TO GOD AND HOLINESS.( THE REGENERATED HEART HAS NEW AFFECTIONS AND DESIRES AND IS, THERFORE, FITTED ( TO SEEK AFTER GOD AND HOLINESS). This clearly shows that Boyce believed that Conversion was a fruit of Regeneration!

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:12:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

JOHN BRINE

Scott said...

First, I want to be clear that I don't agree with John Brine on all theology and some points about Regeneration

You don't agree with Brine on regeneration, yet you want to quote him in your favor of the idea that you were "born again before faith"?

What do you find wrong with Brine? Why should we pay any heed to Brine if you don't agree with him? Where do you find fault with Brine? Aren't you really rather hard-up to have to quote from someone with whom you yourself don't even agree on regeneration? -- Bob Ross

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:14:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

WHY NO BRINE PHOTO
ON FOUNDERS' WEBSITE?

Scott said...


Since I have already shown that your statement " No Baptist Confessions teach Regeneration precedes saving faith" to be wrong such as the NHC and 1689 I thought I would show another fine Baptist theologian teaching that Regeneration does precede Saving faith.His name is John Brine. . .

Perhaps the Founders can update their website by substituting Brine's photo for John L. Dagg's.

Since Dagg teaches the opposite of what you say about Brine, then it would be more consistent with the Founders' "born again before faith" doctrine to use Brine instead of Dagg, wouldn't it?

I also seem to recall that at least some Hardshells take to Brine, and since the Founders have taken to the Hardshell theory of "regeneration before faith," it would be more consistent for the Founders to go with Brine in place of Dagg. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:32:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

SCOTT's BOISTEROUS BUNGLING OF BOYCE

Scott said...


James P Boyce said: On page 374 ( Notice how he seperates Regeneration from Conversion) "

You have no more comprehension of Boyce than you have of the Baptist Confessions of Faith, do you?

The problem that your theory on the New Birth -- wherein you have it occurring before, without, and apart from faith in Christ -- has with James P. Boyce is that Boyce does not agree with you nor with those Hybrids who are on the Faculty at SBTS now.

On page 373 of the same book from which you quote, Boyce says "The Scripture connect the TWO under the ONE IDEA OF THE NEW BIRTH."

And on page 374 Boyce says "the WHOLE WORK of Regeneration and Conversion is INCLUDED under the one term REGENERATION."

Therefore, Scott, Boyce did not believe the New Birth was "disconnected" and took place apart from faith, for he INCLUDED both God's side and man's side under the "one term REGENERATION."

Furthermore, Boyce taught "the use of the Word in regeneration" and cites 1 Cor. 4:15, Philemon 10, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 to show that regeneration is "in connection with the Word," and therefore the Spirit uses means(page 375). This contradicts the theology of your "Reformed" pedo-regenerationist allies such as Berkhof, Sproul, and Frame -- not to mention your sweet brethren among the Georgia Hardshells with whom you fellowship. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:40:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

JOHN BRINE'S REGENERATION
Scott said...

First, I want to be clear that I don't agree with John Brine on all theology and some points about Regeneration

Bob's comment:

What about John Brine's conversion? How do you reconcile that with your "born again before faith" idea? Seems to me Brine had a lot of faith before he claimied to have been born again. -- Bob Ross

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:19:00 PM, Blogger nickg said...

Mr. Ross,

No, I've never responded to an "invitation". But I have testified to my faith in Christ publicly countless times, before believers and unbelievers, in large groups and in personal interactions. Of course, I don't imagine you think it necessary to have responded to an invitation in order to be saved. Since that would include 1800 years of Christians who never heard of such a thing as well as Christians in other cultures today who have no history of such a practice, not to mention all of the Old Testament believers. Obviously, if an adult is going to be baptised, he should publicly confess his faith in Christ.

With all of that agreed on, do you have any response to the points I made? Or are you only interested in making me feel like a sub-standard Christian because my story of coming to faith looks different than your ideal?

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:29:00 PM, Blogger nickg said...

Mr. Ross, you said:

Where Hybrid Calvinism is most prevalent, as amongst the pedo-regenerationists and Hardshells, no one is invited to publicly confess that they are believers in the Son of God and have been saved.

In the Presbyterian churches I have attended for 8 years, I have witnessed countless instances of people publicly confessing their faith in Christ. This happens before adult baptisms (which have been numerous, despite your accusations), as a regular part of times of sharing of testimonies during corporate worship, and as an ongoing interaction in small groups where people meet together to support and mutually shepherd each other through life in a manner that accords with the gospel.

To say that:
In fact, I find it common that these groups make a "virtue" out of not believing you have been saved
is frankly stupid. Even mainline churches that are wholly given over to liberalism and cultic groups like the Mormons count it a "virtue" to be saved. They are simply confused about who saves them, how they are saved, and for what they are saved. What evidence can you put forth for your caustic comment?

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:06:00 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Bob,

I'm not going to play your "Little games". I have shown where Baptist theologian John Brine said Regeneration precedes Conversion. I have shown that the NHC says" In order to be saved we must be regenerated/born again. I have shown how Boyce says that Conversion happens because of Regeneration. The 1689 shows your error as well.
You are one who tries to cause division in the body. You are one that Christians need to avoid. I see clearly why James White, Nettles, Mohler, Sproul, and any level headed theologian ignore you. By the way " Gene Bridges did put a good South GA whoopin on you"! You are really not worth my time!

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:30:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

INVITATIONS

nickg said...


With all of that agreed on, do you have any response to the points I made? Or are you only interested in making me feel like a sub-standard Christian because my story of coming to faith looks different than your ideal?

Not long ago, I wrote a refutation of every argument offered in articles which I read on the Internet, as well as what I read in some writings, all of which opposed invitations. I have these articles available and can email them to you, if you wish.

Your primary argument was, "First, they tend to send a message that salvation is based upon the decision of the sinner rather than the decision of the Savior."

This is a distortion of the normal invitation by Baptist ministers. No Baptist minister, to my knowledge, indicates that responding to an invitation implies what you allege.

However, it is imperative that one who hears the Gospel make some "decision" for or against Christ in the sense of believing on Him for salvation. When one hears the Gospel, he either chooses to reject it or accept it.

C. H. SPURGEON

Here are Spurgeon's words at the close of his sermon entitled, "An Urgent Request for an Immediate Answer" (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 37, #2232). He did not accommodate any "delay," "excuse," or "putting off." With Spurgeon, it was a "NOW" decision which he emphasized.

Spurgeon:
May I ask that everyone here will say “Yes,” or “No,” to the invitation to give himself up to Christ? If you will do so, say, “I will.” If you will not do so, say deliberately, “I will not.”

I wish I could get hold of an undecided man, and taking his hand, could say to him, “Now, you must tell me which it will be.”

I can imagine some of you would say, “Oh, give me time to consider!” and I would reply, “You have had time to consider. Your hair is getting grey.”

In spite of all our entreaties, people say, “Oh, but I do not like to decide so suddenly!” If I asked you whether you would be honest, I hope that you would not take many minutes to answer that. Why, then, should you hesitate so long in giving your adherence to Christ? I am like Abraham's servant; some answer I must have.

But can we rightly press men to decide if we fear that they will answer “No”? I think we may, because, from the nature of the case, no answer means a denial. How many of our hearers have thus for years turned their back upon Christ, by the simple method of giving no answer at all! “We hear what you say, sir,” they murmur, “and thank you for saying it;” but, nevertheless, they go out, and go on their way, and forget what manner of
men they are.

Such a response is a refusal; and it is nonetheless a refusal because you will probably retort, “But I did not say ‘No,’ sir. Indeed, one of these days I may perhaps say ‘Yes.’”

But, meanwhile, you reject the proposal, and refuse to give yourself up to the Lord. The question is, Will you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?

The absence of an affirmative answer means, “No, I will not.” I am sure that it does in every case. No argument can be raised about that.

But if you will answer me, “No, I will not have Christ; I will not believe on him; I will not become a Christian; I will not leave my old ways; I mean to go on in them;” well, I thank you for the answer, pained as I am, because now we can talk it over. This is better than no response, for now we have something to work upon. An ill answer can be considered, while no answer baffles all our efforts to help you. It is far more hopeful to encounter opposition, than to meet with indifference. It is a great thing, when a ship is at sea, for the captain to know whereabouts he is; and when we meet with those who distinctly reject Christ, we at once know our bearings.

If you say, “No, I am not a Christian, and I do not want to be;” so far you are honest, and I want you now to think it over. Would you like to die in this frame of mind? You may die where you are sitting. Are you wise to come to this determination? Do you think that this is a resolution which you can justify before the judgment-bar of God? You will certainly have to appear there. After death you will rise again, when the trump of the archangel sounds; and, as surely as you are here, you will have to stand before the great white throne, whereon Christ will sit as Judge. How will the resolution which you have now made stand the light of that tremendous day?

I pray you, think of it, and I hope that you will alter your decision as many another man has done when he has calmly considered the magnitude of the issues at stake, and the awful result which must come of rejecting him who is now the Savior, but who will one day sit as the Judge.

But we are the more determined to press you for some decision, because an ill answer will set us free to go to others. You see Eliezer says, “If not, tell me; that I may turn to the right hand, or to the left.” Do not suppose that if you refuse Christ, he will lose the effect of his death. “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.” If you will not come unto him, others will. If you reject him, he has a people who will accept him, by his almighty grace.

O sirs, if you; that hear the gospel will not have my Master, we will go and bring in the publicans and harlots, and they shall enter the kingdom of heaven before you! Sons of pious parents, children of Sabbath-schools, if you believe not, you shall be cast into “outer darkness,” where shall be “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” while the people whom you despise, infidels and profligates, the very scum of society, shall accept the Savior, and live.

Oh, I charge you, think not that your refusal of the gospel invitation will leave any gaps in the ranks of the redeemed! Our Savior, in his parable of the marriage of the king’s son, foretold what will happen. The king said to his servants, “The wedding is ready, but they
which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.”

But I would urge you to yield yourself unto the Lord, that you may be found at the marriage-supper of the Lamb. Do not trifle with eternal matters. If you want to play the fool, do it with counters or with pebbles, but not with your soul, that shall live for ever in bliss or in woe.

My importunity with you is strengthened when I think that, perhaps, if you give me the answer straight out, “No, I am not a Christian, and I do not mean to be one,” you may, in saying it, see more clearly what a terrible decision you have arrived at. An ill answer may startle you, and ultimately lead you to repent of your folly, and reverse your decision. If you would write down — “I am not a Christian, and I never mean to be one,” it might
startle you still more. I challenge you to do so; and when it is written, put it over the mantelpiece, and look at it. It will be far better to do that, horrible as it is, than to continue in this state of wicked suspense, indifferent as to whether you are lost or saved, undecided whether you are for Christ or against him, and yet, in your heart of hearts, dead in trespasses and sins.

In this very place, I once urged those who were undecided to go home, and write down, either the word “Saved,” or “Lost,” and sign their name to the paper. One man, when he got into his house, asked for pen and paper; and when his wife enquired why he wanted it, he said he was going to do what the parson said, and write down “Lost.” She refused to fetch him the paper if he was going to do that. So he got it himself, and put down a capital L, when his little girl climbed up in the chair behind him, and said, “No, father, you shan’t do that, I’d rather die than you should do that”; and the child’s tears fell on his hand as she spoke. What my sermon had failed to do, those tears accomplished; the strong man was bowed, and yielded himself to Christ; and when they got up from their knees in that little room, he took the pen, and changing the L into an S, wrote “Saved.”

He was saved because he came face to face with the fact that he was lost. His ill answer startled both himself and his child. May God work the like change in you, both for your own sake and also for the sake of your loved ones!

I want to press you for some kind of answer, because, like Eliezer, I have promised my Master to make search for you, and an ill answer will clear me of my oath. If I can get “No,” from you as your answer, and am certain that you will not go with me to my Master’s Son, I shall be clear. It was so with Abraham’s servant; he and his master agreed to that at the first.

When men say “No,” and entreaties are of no further use, and the preaching of the gospel has no power over them, then we must leave them, and carry the glad tidings to others, just as Paul and Barnabas of old said to the angry Jews at Antioch, “It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”

I beseech you, do not put Christ away from you; and I press you for a definite answer. I say, as Eliezer said, “If ye will deal kindly and truly with my master, tell me: and if not, tell me; that I may turn to the right hand, or to the left.”

Now I just want to have a little talk with you over this matter.

My dear friend, you are in peril of eternal death. While you are hesitating, life is ebbing. During the past few months, how many of our dear friends have been taken away by influenza, and other causes! This congregation has suffered from sickness, in family after family, as I never knew it suffer before. May you not be taken?

I charge you, therefore, do not act as though you had plenty of time. Possibly you have not another week to live. The clock, as it ticks, seems to me to say, “Now, now, now, now, now, now;” and for some of you there is an alarm in the clock, which, when it runs down, utters this warning, “Now or never, now or never, now or never.”

After all, the matter that we have in hand is not one that requires great debate. Whether I will believe the truth or not, should not be a matter of discussion. Whether I will receive the gift of God or not, should not be a thing to be argued about if I am in my right mind. Whether, being lost, I am willing to be saved — whether, having the gospel of eternal life proclaimed to me, I should accept it by faith — well, I need not ask the sages as to what I shall answer, nor need I go to the Law Courts to consult the judges as to my reply. This is a thing so simple that it requires no argument. Who will choose to be damned? Who will refuse eternal life? Surely these are questions that should be decided at once.

Waiting and trifling have done you no good hitherto. The countryman, when he wanted to cross the river, and found it deep, said that he would sit down and wait till the water was all gone by. He waited, but the river was just as deep after all his waiting; and with all your delay, the difficulties in the way of your accepting Christ do not get any less. If you look at the matter rightly, you will see that there are no great difficulties in the way,
nor were there ever such obstacles as your imagination pictures.

Another countryman, having to cross Cheapside, one morning, was so confused by the traffic of omnibuses and cabs and foot passengers, that he said he felt sure he could not get across the road, and would wait till the people thinned out a little; but all day long they never did thin out. Unless he had waited till the evening, he would have found little difference in that perpetual stream of hurrying people.

O friends, you have waited until you can get “a convenient season” to become a Christian, and after all your delay, the way is not any clearer! Twenty years ago some of you were as
near decision for Christ as you are now. Nay, you seemed nearer. I then thought, “Oh, some of them will soon believe in Jesus, and yield their hearts to him!”

But you said then that it was not quite time. Is it time now? Is the day without difficulty any nearer? Is the season any more suitable? Nay, indeed, there is no improvement. Let me say that, I believe that your waiting has not only done you no good, but has positively done you great harm. There were times when it seemed easy for you to yield to the pressure of the divine Spirit. It certainly is not easier now; indeed, it is more difficult. I think sometimes

God treats men as Benjamin Franklin treated the man who stood loafing in his bookshop,
and at last took up a book, and said, “How much is this?” Franklin replied, “A shilling.” “A shilling?” he said, “a shilling?” and he would not give the price. After staying about ten minutes, he said: “Come, Mr. Franklin, now what will you take for it?” Franklin answered, “Two shillings.” “No,” he said, “you are joking.” “I am not joking,” said Franklin: “the price is two shillings.” The man waited, and sat a while, thinking. “I want the book,” he drawled out; “still, I will not give two shillings. What will you take for it?” Franklin said, “Three shillings.” “Well,” the man said, “why do you raise your price?” To which Franklin responded, “You see, you have wasted so much of my time that I could better have afforded to take one shilling at first than three shillings now.”

Sometimes, if men come to Christ at the very first invitation, it is a sweet and easy coming. See how dear young children often yield themselves to Christ, and how peaceful is their
entrance into the rest of faith! But when people wait, when they postpone believing, when they violate conscience, when they tread down all the uprising of holy thoughts within them, it becomes much harder for them to trust in Christ than it would have been when he was first preached to them. I come, therefore, to you again, and say, “If ye will deal kindly and truly with my Master, tell me: and if not, tell me; and tell me now.”

“Well,” says one, “I am glad you have spoken to us; I will think it over.”

No, friend, I do not mean that. I do not want you to think it over. You have had enough of thinking; I pray that God’s Spirit may lead you to an immediate decision.

“Well, suppose that we consider it during the week,” you say. No, that will not suit either my Master or myself. I want the answer now. I am like a messenger carrying a letter, on which is written, “The bearer will wait for a reply.”

I was once in a country town, and I said to my host, when I went to bed, “I have to be in London tomorrow, and I cannot get up in time for my work unless I leave by a train which I can catch readily enough if you wake me at six o’clock.” Well, my host was an Irishman, so he woke me at five o’clock; and when I sat up in bed, I said, “What is it?” He said, “You have only another hour to sleep.”

The consequence was that I missed my train. If he had only wakened me at the proper time, and said, “Now you must get up,” I should have dressed at once; but as he said, “You have only another hour to sleep,” of course I slept that hour, and another one as well, for I was weary. The same principle applies to you.

If I say to you, “Go home, and think it over all the week,” I shall be giving you a week in which to remain in rebellion against God; and I have no right to do that. I shall be giving you a week in which you are to continue an unbeliever; and he that is an unbeliever is in peril of eternal ruin, for “he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Worse than all, the week may lead to many other weeks; to months, perhaps, and years; perchance to a whole eternity of woe. I cannot give you five minutes. God the Holy Ghost speaks by me now to souls whom God hath chosen from before the foundation of the world, and he says, “Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” The Holy Ghost says “Today, even today.”

“Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”

The question comes to you, Will ye be Christ’s? “If ye will deal kindly and truly with my Master, tell me: and if not, tell me.”

The best answer you can give is in the verses that follow the text. “Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The thing proceedeth from the Lord: we cannot speak unto thee bad or good. Behold, Rebekah is before thee; take her.”

Oh I wish some of you would thus respond to my appeal this day! This thing is also from the Lord: it was he who gave me this message; it was he who brought you to hear it. Surely you will not be found fighting against God. Your heart is open to him; he sees the faintest desire that you have toward him. Breathe out your wish now, and say, “My heart is before thee: take it.”

"Take my poor heart, and let it be
For ever closed to all but thee!
Seal thou my breast, and let me wear
That pledge of love for ever there.”

He will not be slow to accept that which is offered to him. He will take you now, and he will keep you for ever.

“How is it to be done?” says one. The plan is very simple. Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of all who ever will trust him. Come and rest upon his atoning sacrifice. Give yourself up to him wholly and unreservedly, and he will save you. Take him to be your Savior by the simple act of faith. The pith of the matter is that I, being lost, give myself
over to Christ to save me.

I believe that the act of faith was very well set forth in the statement of a poor imbecile. They said that he was an idiot; but I think that he had more real sense than many a man who boasts of his intellect. Some one said to him “John, have you got a soul?

“No,” he said, “I ain’t got no soul.”

“Why, John, how is that?”

He replied, “I had a soul once, but I lost it, and Jesus Christ found it, so I have just let him keep it.”

There is the whole philosophy of salvation. You have lost your soul; Christ has found it. Let him keep it. God bless you! Amen.

LETTER FROM MR. SPURGEON.

DEAR READER, — This sermon is an urgent appeal to the undecided; and if you are in that condition, I would by this letter press the suit home in the most personal manner. I am a sick man who has narrowly escaped the hand of death, and I feel that the things of eternity ought not to be trifled with. To be saved at the last, our wisdom is to be saved at once. If I had left my soul’s matters for a sick bed, I could not have attended to them there, for I was delirious, and the mind could not fix itself sensibly upon any subject. Before the cloud lowers over your mind, give your best attention to the Word of the Lord. I beseech you, dear reader, to do this, for you cannot tell how soon the hour of life may end. It has been life to me to hear of souls saved by God’s grace through these sermons, and I am praying the Lord to give me a deep and long draught of this heart-reviving joy, by causing me to hear that this discourse is made to thousands the means of life from the dead. It is a large request, but the Lord has said, “Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.” Thus would I open my mouth in prayer for you, dear reader, and thousands like you. Do you
not, in your heart of hearts, desire that the Lord would hear his servant’s petition?

Yours to serve as strength returns,
Menton, Nov. 14, 1891
C. H. SPURGEON.

NOTE: Mr. Spurgeon died on January 31, 1892. This sermon reveals with what compassion he pleaded with, reasoned with, and pressed upon lost souls to come to Christ for salvation -- right up to the door of his own death. Is it any wonder that he had such a great harvest of souls in his ministry, and extending even beyond the grave thru his published works? Even now, there may be souls reading this excerpt, and they will be moved by Spurgeon's plea to decide now to come to Christ for salvation!

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:50:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

JOHN BRINE???

Scott said...

I don't agree with John Brine on all theology and some points about Regeneration

Bob's comment:

Why are you digging up Brine, anyway? You already have the support of pedo-regenerationists Berkhof, Shedd, Sproul, and John Frame, not to mention Hybrids Schreiner, Nettles, Dever, and James White -- so what can John Brine contribute to anything?

Frame has the elect regenerated before they are born, and Mohler recognizes him as a scholar.

Berkhof, Sproul, and Shedd have the elect regenerated in infancy, and the Founders promote Sproul and Berkhof as a great theologians.

I suppose you may be digging up Brine to get the elect
"regenerated" and "justified" in eternity past? Wasn't that what Brine was most noted for -- a pecular doctrine of "eternal justification"?

So if "justification" follows "regeneration" in the "ordo salutis," then if "justification" was in eternity past, that would mean "regeneration" was also in eternity past since it allegedly "precedes" justification -- right?

So now, here is what you have:

The elect are (1) "regenerated" in eternity past (per Brine), or (2)before birth in the mothers' wombs (per Frame), or (3) shortly after birth (per Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul), or (4) at some later date but prior to faith (per White, Schreiner, Dever, Nettles).

You have the filed covered, don't you? Just so "regeneration" takes place without the elect's believing in Jesus Christ -- just any old date will do -- right?

Which one of these Hybrid Calvinists is telling the truth -- if any at all? -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:02:00 PM, Blogger nickg said...

Mr. Ross, you said:

However, it is imperative that one who hears the Gospel make some "decision" for or against Christ in the sense of believing on Him for salvation. When one hears the Gospel, he either chooses to reject it or accept it.

Of course it is imperative that a person make a decision, but I would disagree that it is the evangelist's responsibility, or even right, to demand or coerce such a decision. Of course, we hope and pray for a decision in the affirmative every time we share the Gospel with an unbeliever. And, it may not hurt to ask the person where he stands in relation to the call of the Gospel. But, I can think of many scenarios in which a person would be deeply offended if a Christian expected him to change his whole life commitment and worldview after one conversation, sermon, or presentation. Such an expectation--even though framed as a friendly "invitation"--may cause someone to further harden their hearts against Christ if he find's that Christ's ambassadors are so disrespectful. Truly, there is an offense to the Gospel, but Christians are not called to exacerbate that offense by their manner of presenting this only message of hope that the world has.

While I agree with you and Spurgeon in one sense that it is technically true that if a person does not say "yes" to Christ then he is by default saying "no". But, in another sense, especially in today's cultural context in which there is so little awareness of the real claims of Christianity (as opposed to the caricatures and straw-men that prevail), there are many cases in which a person is not saying "yes" or "no" but, "let me hear more". The Thessalonians were commended for testing the words of even the Apostle Paul. Should we not expect that those we share the Gospel with may need time to consider our message and claims? Faith in Christ is not a blind leap in a dark place but a life commitment based upon reasonable (and more importantly, Spiritual) persuasion.

In no way should my comments be taken to mean that I don't understand the urgency of the matter or the times. Christ may return at any time, and those without faith in Him--including many people I love dearly and witness to regularly--will be forever lost unless they repent and believe. My concern is that the Church present the message of the hope of the Gospel in the most effective manner for the time and place that God has made to be the context for our ministry.

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:05:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

"THERE YOU GO AGAIN"
Scott said...


You are really not worth my time!

Bob's Comment:

"There you go again," Scott, losing your cool. I have replied to you on the Confessions of Faith, and demonstrated that none of them supports your "born again before faith view." They all affirm the pre-faith work of the Spirit, but none identify that work as being the New Birth. All Baptists believe in the influences of the Spirit before faith, but Confessional Baptists hold that the New Birth is not experienced before and without faith (1 John 5:4; John 3:14-18).

I have refuted you on Boyce, and I have shown you that Carroll, Spurgeon, and Dagg are all Confessional Calvinists on the New Birth, and none of them has one "born again before faith." I showed you Spurgeon's own account of his conversion, how he "looked and lived." I refuted Gene Bridges at every point, just as I did Sam Hughey.

Now you dragged out Brine, who would have us believe in eternal regeneration (since he holds eternal justification and justification follows regeneration).

You side with men like Frame, who teach regeneration in the mothers' wombs, and with Sproul who teaches regeneration in infancy, and with Hardshells who teach regenertion without believing in Christ.

You are a defeated man, and you know it.

Be thankful that Charles and I have been here to correct you, like Paul corrected Peter, and like Apollos was corrected. It is better to change your ways now, than go on in the path which will bring spiritual blight to your ministry. You will not have souls saved with the message you are preaching. Your church will dry up, or split, or otherwise come to naught. I have seen too many cases just like yours. Every Hybrid church I've known for any length of time went down the tubes. Your only alternative is to go over to the Hardshells, and try to survive on proselytism. If you will check it out, you'll see that most Hardshells are proselytes from the real Baptists.

-- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:18:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

nickg said...

In the Presbyterian churches I have attended for 8 years, I have witnessed countless instances of people publicly confessing their faith in Christ.

Such instances have escaped my attention. What churches have had such as this take place?


To say that: In fact, I find it common that these groups make a "virtue" out of not believing you have been saved
is frankly stupid.


Lorraine Boetnner, a Presbyterian theologian, personally told me he did not know when he was saved. I think you will find this common to pedos.

Scores of Hardshell Baptists whose writing I have read say they only have a "hope" -- which means "hope so."

In my opinion, the reason Finney and Moody had such success in revivals among the pedobaptists is due to their not having any assurance of salvation. They were taught that they got "regenerated" in infancy, and had no new birth experience. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:27:00 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Bob,

Why am I digging up John Brine? You have been saying that no Baptist Confessions or Confessional Calvinist believe that Regeneration precedes Conversion. You have said this over and over so I have proved over and over that you are wrong. You can't dispute what is public Bob!
Really you have become a waste of time because you will not be honest about publicly printed material that has shot down your view. That's the proof Bob! You can't erase the NHC statement or Brine, Gill,1689,and Boyce.
You really are a "Goofball"! Your false statements, Joel Osteen, Confessional Calvinist, Sell Charsmatic books at your bookstore. Your all over the place.

 
At Thursday, May 11, 2006 5:57:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

FURTHER REPLY TO nickg
ON INVITATIONS
:

>>After all, Jesus commanded His people to "make disciples" not "tally up converts" or "confessers".>>

REPLY: That is not a substantial objection to invitations. Making disciples does not exclude the scriptural teaching about confessing Christ with the mouth by whatever means possible.

And whether you "tally up converts" or not, there is a talley nevertheless that God at least takes note of. For example, beginning at Pentecost and into the Book of Acts, we are often met with reports of the numbers being converted. God is a God of statistics, whether we are concerned by them or not.

>>Second, I have no doubt you are correct, Mr. Ross, that Finney was not the originator of the method,>>

REPLY: Thanks for acknowledging the facts of history. So many "Reformed" writers who object to invitations are always carping and harping about Finney as if he was the originator of invitations.

As for any abuses of invitations, that is no argument against their use, no more than the abuse of other items related to the church -- such as wasting money on elaborate structures and accessories, "hypocrites in the church," false professions, etc.

>>Third, the invitation method of evangelism was pioneered in a completely different cultural context.>>

REPLY: This is no argument against the use of invitations to confess Christ openly before men. Changing cultures do not effect unchangeable truths and our responsbility to them, and it is unchangeable that Jesus is the Son of God and should be acknowledged as such in any and every way that is practical, rational, and possible.

>>Fourth, and related to the last point, it is far less common today for people to struggle with guilt (i.e., a realization of their sin) than it is for them to struggle with lonliness, bondage (whether to addictive substances or to activities like sexual practices), or shame.>>

REPLY: I'm sorry, but I do not see that subjective struggling experiences of whatever description have any bearing upon the scriptural teaching that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and should be acknowledged as such by every person who hears this message.

The public invitation following the preaching of the Gospel affords a very suitable and appropriate circumstance for confession of Christ, especially for those who have never openly and publicly acknowledged Christ as Lord and Saviour.

The more one verbally confesses Christ before men the better for his own heart and his witnessing relationship to others who may be benefited by his confession. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:53:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

SCOTT'S DESPERATION

Scott said...


Sell Charsmatic books at your bookstore. Your all over the place.

Bob to Scott:

This shows how desperate you are, Scott. To my knowledge, I don't have a single charismatic book in my store. If you are referring to Joel Osteen, he is not charismatic. Who else do you have in mind?

You are really something, Scott . . . maybe on the order of Kudzu -- more of a nusiance than anything else.

I notice you say your church has been meeting since September. Have you had any of the elect "regenerated" before faith since that time? What did you do -- split another church?
I was looking at that Florida church's affirmation today, and see that they evidently differ with you. Bob

 
At Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:26:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

INVITATIONS
nickg said...


Of course it is imperative that a person make a decision, . . . But, I can think of many scenarios in which a person would be deeply offended if a Christian expected him to change his whole life commitment and worldview after one conversation, sermon, or presentation.

The Scripture says "Now is the accepted time, today is the day of salvation," and we have no right to let anyone leave with the impression they have "plenty of time to decide," but they should leave UNCOMFORTABLE that they have decided against accepting Christ.

I doubt seriously that in those Presbyterian churches you attend they even give an invitation, and if they do, no one is "offended" by any "pressure" to decide for Christ. The idea of infant "regeneration" in their past gives them a "pillow" to rest on as false security. -- Bob

 
At Friday, May 12, 2006 12:52:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

SCOTT'S RELIABILITY
Scott said...


Sell Charsmatic books at your bookstore. Your all over the place.

Bob's comment:

This remark also shows how reliable you are, Scott.

How many times have you been into my book store?

How many "charismatic books" did you see?

Do you even know a "charismatic book" from another book?

This deficiency on your part demonstrates how much stock anyone can put into what you say. You evidently have difficulty understanding and comprehending what you read.

You remind me of the Mormons who are able to "find" some of their "ancestors" in America before America was discovered.

You remind me of the Campbellites who "find" some who have "fallen from grace" and "lost salvation."

You remind me of the pedos like Sproul and Frame who "find" babies which are "regenerated," some even before they are born.

You remind me of the Hardshells who find "regenerated" elect even among the pagan religions which never even heard of Jesus Christ.

Do you still have your "pet rock," Scott? -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Friday, May 12, 2006 9:57:00 AM, Blogger Scott said...

Bob Ross supports Joel Osteen! Joel attended Oral Roberts for 1.5 yrs then went back to Lakewood. His father left the SBC back in 1950 something to fully embrace Charismatic/Pentecostal theology. Lakewood has been nurtered in that theology.
Bob you bring shame upon the SBC with your General Baptist theology and support for women pastors, tongues, prosperity gospel, and lying ways! Please repent or depart from us because you are dangerous! Will you renounce Lakewood and Joel Osteen?

 
At Friday, May 12, 2006 11:34:00 AM, Blogger Scott said...

Bob,

It was reported a month ago from someone who blogged here and said they have been in your store and saw some of these books. This is on record on this blogsite! Do you sell Joel Osteen books? If you do then it really dosn't matter if you sell Benny Hinn and others. Osteen is enough to discredit you!
Your public praise of Joel's preaching on this blogsite discredits you. You promote Lakewood and that discredits you. Women pastors and they also preach at this church. It's public record. Sproul vs Osteen ? Bob are you kidding? Mohler vs Osteen? Bob are you kidding? Dever vs Osteen? Bob are you kidding? Nettles vs Osteen? Bob you are really kidding? Ascol vs Osteen? Bob have you lost your mind? James White vs Osteen? Bob are you high on drugs?
Bob you might as well run with Bob Harrington, James R, Ron Phillips, and the TBN crowd.
Show us Bob that the NHC and 1689 don't teach Regeneration precedes Conversion. You can't or everyone who sees this site will see you are going against printed material that shows your error! John Brine, Gill, Spurgeon" Conversion is the fruit of Regeneration". Hello in one home in Bob's head? Are you willing to say that Spurgeon did not say this? Are you willing to say that Spurgeon's quote does not mean that Conversion follows after Regeneration?

SHOW US YOUR SKILL IN TWISTING AND LYING !

 
At Friday, May 12, 2006 11:55:00 AM, Blogger Scott said...

Bob,

Man, James White is debating alot! His website shows he is a busy man debating. Why is your phone not ringing for debates? Oh everybody is scared to debate Bob Ross. That's it! I'm still waiting for my blogs to appear that gave my answer to debting you. I guess we will never know?
My wife has asked me to quit wasting my time with you. She has noticed how you can't respond to the NHC statement on Regeneration or the Spurgeon quotes that I have posted.She mentioned how you won't deal with chapter 10 in the 1689 properly. Since I love my wife:

Good Bye Calvinist Flyswatter offically( This time)! I will leave you to yourself to continue to make " Fools of yourselves" ! Keep misquoting and continue your following of Joel Osteen!

 
At Friday, May 12, 2006 3:48:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

SCOTT'S BRAIN DEFICIENCY IS SHOWING AGAIN

Scott said...


Bob Ross supports Joel Osteen! Joel attended Oral Roberts for 1.5 yrs then went back to Lakewood. His father left the SBC back in 1950 something to fully embrace Charismatic/Pentecostal theology. Lakewood has been nurtered in that theology.
Bob you bring shame upon the SBC with your General Baptist theology and support for women pastors, tongues, prosperity gospel, and lying ways!


Bob to Scott:

You are all concerned about my selling Joel's book, but you give Mohler and Nettles a "pass" when they have baby
"regenerationalists"
like Sproul and Frame speak at SBTS and invite heretic Lasserre Bradley, the Hardshell, to the campus. Your priorities don't seem to be in order.

There are no "tongues" and "charismatic" practices at Lakewood Church, Scott.

Have you been to a service? Have you seen any "tongues" etc. on TV?
Where are you getting you wild ideas? The National Enquirer?

All this "charismatic" stuff is your vain imagination. I have friends who are members there; one of them is on the staff. They are not a "charismatic" church. Joel is not a "charismatic." His Dad was only partially so. Some of your neighbors at Canton have been to Joel's church several times. These close friends of mine did not see any "charismatic" stuff going on at Lakewood. They are good Southern Baptists, much sounder on Calvnism than you will ever be.

Joel's book has no "charistmatic" elements in it. I will give you $100 for every page in the book that has "charismatic" stuff on it if you will give me $1.00 for every page that doesn't. Deal?

You said I sold "charismatic books," but you have produced no evidence. This is sometimes called "lying," Scott. In your case, it is simply IGNORANCE, else a mental problem -- you speak what you don't know. I make allowance for your mental deficiency. Maybe you have been eating too much Kudzu.

Do you think you may have a "loose screw"? That's what J. B. Jeter said about Alexander Campbell. Do you think you should at least consult a brain surgeon -- maybe a lobotomy is in order? Maybe he could tighten the screw back. At least do something to try to get your brain back on course. -- Bob Ross

 
At Friday, May 12, 2006 6:00:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Hello, Scott!

You wrote, Oh everybody is scared to debate Bob Ross. That's it!

I know of two for sure. You and "Dr." James White.

James' "elders" never showed up at Bob's church even after Bob invited them to do so!

Bob offered to debate you anytime, anywhere. You have yet to accept.

My wife has asked me to quit wasting my time with you.

She probably knows that Bob would mop up the floor with you and for your own sake she is looking out for you. You ought to listen to her.

Charles

 
At Friday, May 12, 2006 8:18:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

BAPTIST CONFESSIONS

Scott said...


It was reported a month ago from someone who blogged here and said they have been in your store and saw some of these books.

Bob to Scott:

What books? Who reported it? Please name one "charismatic" book title in my store.

We have no "charismatic" books in our store. You are hallucinating.

Joel is not charismatic, despite your palabberating. You come to Houston, and I will take you to Lakewood, and if there is any "charismaticism," I will pay your plane fare and motel bill, plus give you $100 spending money.

While Al Mohler's "scholars" -- Sproul, Duncan, and Frame and your other pedo friends -- add "regenerated" babies to their church rolls, Joel is inviting sinners to repent and trust Christ -- every Sunday on TV -- and then some. When you come, maybe you might want to walk the aisle and offer Joel your apologies.

Scott: Show us Bob that the NHC and 1689 don't teach Regeneration precedes Conversion.

Coincidentally, I was comparing the SBC 1925, BF&M 1963, and BF&M 2000 Confessions today, and they all agree that there is no new birth or regeneration apart from, before, and without faith.

SBC 1925:

Under "Regeneration," it says regeneration is "conditioned upon FAITH in Christ" (Article 7, Lumpkin's Baptist Confessions, page 394). This faith is efficiently wrought in the sinner by the Word and Spirit (Article 8).

BF&M 1963:

Under "God the Holy Spirit," it says "He calls men TO THE SAVIOUR, and effects regeneration."

Notice that they are called to Christ so as to "effect regeneration."

Under "Salvation," the 1963 says Salvation "INCLUDES regeneration" whereby "BELIEVERS become new creatures," -- contrary to the Hybrid Calvinist view which alleges that UNBELIEVERS become new creatures apart from faith in Christ.

Sinners become "believers" thru the Holy Spirit's "illumination to understand the truth" so as to change their hearts, producing repentance and faith (Articles II-C, IV-1).

BF&M 2000:

Under II-C, the Holy Spirit's "illumination enables men to understand truth," and "He calls men to the Saviour, and EFFECTS REGENERATION."

Notice that "regeneration" is effected as men understand the truth and come to the Saviour, contrary to the "ordo paludal" of the "Reformed" pedo-regenerationists.

Under Article IV on "Salvation," the BF&M 2000 says "salvation includes regeneration . . . there is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord" -- consequently, since regeneration is "included" in salvation, there is no regeneration apart from faith.

As for the New Hampshire Confession, I have already covered that earlier, and shown that it teaches that regeneration is "in connection with Divine Truth," giving us the graces of repentance and faith in our souls -- contrary to the Hybrid Calvinist
"regeneration" which leaves the "regenerated" without faith -- as per Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, Frame, and other pedo-regenerationists.

Furthermore, the Confessions of 1644, 1677-89, and the Philadelphia of 1742 have all been cited in previoius threads to demonstrate that they do not support Hybrid Calvinism.

You have had a wagonload of quotes from both Spurgeon and Gill which show where they stood -- that the creation of faith is essential to regeneration.

As for Brine, if you can show that he believed the elect were regenerated in eternity, you are welcome to him.

Tell your wife to stop humouring you. Cut out the Kudzu! Surely, she is not as bad off as you. Was she saved during an invitation, too? Who was the "Arminian" preacher that the Spirit used to give her the Gospel and bring about her regeneration? We know that is how you got saved, but you don't want to give credit where credit is due.

Mrs. Scott needs to get you to a surgeon who can do a brain scan to see if there is anything to be found inside your gourd besides Hybrid Calvinism. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Friday, May 12, 2006 8:33:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

JAMES WHITE & DEBATING
Scott said...


Man, James White is debating alot! His website shows he is a busy man debating.

Bob to Scott:

Let's hope that James keeps so busy debating that he will not have any time to "exegeet" his heresies on Hybrid Calvinism! If he can stick to debating Muslims, Catholics, Agnostics, Da Vinci, etc. etc. then his exegeet'n Hybrid Calvinism will not further delude naive minds like some in Georgia.

I just hope he knows more about the Muslims, the Catholics, and Agnostics than he knows about some of the other subjects on which he has blundered in the past -- like Eternal Sonship, King James Onlyism, Regeneration, and Calvinism.

James said he wanted to come to my church and file charges against me, but neither he nor his Elders bothered to respond to my church's invitation to come here. Does James get "cold feet" so easily?

Anyway -- let's just hope he can stay busy with debating, for it will help keep him out of trouble on the more important matters wherein he might put his foot into his mouth again. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Friday, May 12, 2006 11:17:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

A TRICK QUESTION, SCOTT?

Scott said...


Show us Bob that the NHC and 1689 don't teach Regeneration precedes Conversion

Bob to Scott:

What is this, Scott . . . a trick question?

Surely, you know that "regeneration" is not even mentioned in Chapter 10 on Effectual Calling, don't you?

God effectually calls "by His Word and Spirit," not by the Spirit alone as your Hardshell friends and pedo-regenerationists like Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, and Frame teach.

Also, it might interest you to consider the "ordo salutis" of "regeneration" in Chapter 13 of the 1689 Confession:

"They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and REGENERATED," etc.

Notice the "order," Scott?

(1) united to Christ,
(2) effectually called, and
(3) regenerated.

Shouldn't the order have been (1) regeneration first -- according to your Hybrid Calvinist "ordo paludal"?

How could the London Baptists have made such a blunder, putting "regeneration" in the third spot, after "united to Christ" and "effectually called"? Does this indicate that union with Christ and effectual called "precede regeneration"? If not, why not?

Also, Scott, another thought: Why are you so concerned about Joel Osteen? Do you think he will keep some of the "elect" from being "regenerated"? Or, since the "elect" get "regenerated" in infancy, or even before birth, are they in danger of losing their "regeneration" if they are led astray by Joel? How many of the "elect" to you know who have been led to apostasy by Joel?

You and Mohler seem to be awfully fearful about Joel, as if he might overthrow "election" and "regeneration." -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Friday, May 12, 2006 11:55:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob Ross said to Scott Morgan, How many of the "elect" to you know who have been led to apostasy by Joel?

What about it, Scott? Can you name one of the "elect" who will not be in heaven because of him?

Charles

 
At Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:10:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

THE UNANSWERABLE QUESTION?

Charles said...

Brother Bob Ross said to Scott Morgan, How many of the "elect" to you know who have been led to apostasy by Joel?

What about it, Scott? Can you name one of the "elect" who will not be in heaven because of him?

Charles
?

Bob to Charles:

I think you may have asked "the Unanswerable Question," Charles.

(1) If Scott says "None," then why is he so up-in-the-air about Joel Osteen?

(2) If he names someone, then his whole "house" of "election, predestination, limited atonement, irresistable grace, final perseverance, and regeneration" falls to pieces.

(3) If he says, "I cannot tell," then he joins the Pharisees who had to say "we cannot tell" in Jesus' day.

This is what you call a
"Trilemma" -- death on any one of three horns.

Maybe Scott should consult the Great Exegeet'n "White Lightnin'" Debater himself on this one.

Since Apostle James discovered that Paul had a horse, he should be able to help Scott unravel your question, don't you think?-- Bob Ross

 
At Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:20:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

GOODBYE FROM SCOTT?

Scott said...


My wife has asked me to quit wasting my time with you. . . . Since I love my wife:

Good Bye Calvinist Flyswatter offically( This time)!


Bob to Charles:

[Play some "soap opera music" in the background for this:]

Does this mean that Mrs. Morgan is the "official" word for Scott?

Will his love for his wife prevail over Scott's inordinate passion to attack Creedal Calvinism as it is presented in the Confessions, Boyce, Carroll, Dagg, Spurgeon, Gill, and the Calvinist Flyswatter?

Will Scott find a "sweet home" with the Hardshells of Georgia where "born again before faith" is appreciated?

Will Scott's new church change its name to "Primitive Baptist"?

Will Scott adopt "eternal regeneration" per John Brine's thinking?

And will anyone ever know who the "Arminian" preacher was who led Scott to Christ?


Tune in again to The Calvinist Flyswatter and see if these and other questions are answered in this ongoing drama, "All My Elect Children."

 
At Saturday, May 13, 2006 10:52:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob Ross asked about Brother Scott Morgan, "Will Scott's new church change its name to "Primitive Baptist"?"

Scott has such "sweet fellowship" with the Hardshells and Tom Nettles, I think he should entertain a name change.

Charles

 
At Sunday, May 14, 2006 9:53:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

FOUNDERS INCONSISTENCY AGAIN?

Bob to Charles:


I had a little time to browse some today on the Internet, and I noted on the Founders' blog what appears to be a rather obvious inconsistency -- which would not be unusual for the Founders.

It seems that Tom Ascol is critical of the fact that Paige Patterson has endorsed Ronnie Floyd for SBC President, and his rationale is that Patterson is president of the Southwestern Seminary.

Yet Ascol is also head of an organization, the Founders Ministries, and most if not all the items I saw on the Founders' website about Floyd apparently were designed to denigrate Floyd.

If this is the case, then Floyd is probably the better candidate than anyone promoted by the Founders in the light of the Founders' affiliations with Hybrid Calvinists, pedo-regenerationists, anti-invitationists, and "born again before faithites."

At least it certainly is inconsistent for Ascol to expect neutrality from Patterson while Ascol himself evidently takes the liberty of discrediting Floyd. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Monday, May 15, 2006 12:27:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

The difference between Founders and SWBTS is huge! Money from the SBC goes to SWBTS not Founders.So your point is void !I noticed Scott proved you wrong on the Baptist Confessions and quotes. Chapter 10 in the 1689 is Regeneration though it is labeled Effectual Calling. Most true Calvinist use them as one heading.So, the 1689 does teach that one of the elect must be given the ability to respond savingly to Christ. Regeneration comes first.One is converted because they are Regenerated( Made Alive).

 
At Monday, May 15, 2006 4:43:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

ANONYMOUS' ANIMUS

Anonymous said...


The difference between Founders and SWBTS is huge! Money from the SBC goes to SWBTS not Founders.So your point is void !

Money also goes to the Founders, whose Board members and Conference speakers include SBC seminary faculty members -- which faculty members receive SBC money and lend their support and influence to the Founders. Since when should SBC faculty members be lending income-producing influence to a pedo-regenerationist promoting organization such as the Founders?

Founders Ministries enhances itself by using SBC seminary faculty members at its conferences. I have a circular which came in today's mail for a Founder's conference July 11-14 in Oklahoma with Tom Nettles as a speaker. Nettles presumably will help Founders draw more in attendance, which means more money for Founders' registration and sales of Founders products.

You also are in further error, as follows:
Chapter 10 in the 1689 is Regeneration though it is labeled Effectual Calling. Most true Calvinist use them as one heading.So, the 1689 does teach that one of the elect must be given the ability to respond savingly to Christ. Regeneration comes first.One is converted because they are Regenerated( Made Alive).

One of us must have have inverted eyesight!

According to Chapter XIII, the order is (1) united to Christ, (2) effectually called, and (3) regenerated. Please note that "effectually called" precedes and is distinguished from "regenerated."

Also, Chapter XVII similarly has the order as (1) accepted in the beloved, (2) effectually called, and (3) sanctified by His Spirit [in this sense initial sanctification by the Spirit].

Chapter XIV on Saving Faith says "the elect are enabled to BELIEVE TO THE SAVING OF THEIR SOULS," which is the work of the Spirit wrought by the ministry of the Word.

That the preliminary influence of the Word and the Spirit "enable" is strongly insisted upon by all Creedal Calvinists, but Creedal Calvinists just as strongly insist that sinners are not born again until they "believe to the saving of their souls," according to this Confession.

Otherwise, sinners would be "born again" without faith in Christ and would not need to be enabled to believe to the "SAVING" of their souls. They would have life without the Son, when Scripture says "He that hath the Son hath life" (1 John 5:12).

There is no one born again, regenerated, saved, or given eternal life before the Spirit works by means of the Word in producing saving faith in the heart, according to this Confession of Faith.

According to Article VIII, paragraph 8, Christ's work is applied and communicated by "uniting them to Himself by His Spirit, revealing unto them, in and BY THE WORD, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to BELIEVE and OBEY, governing their hearts by His WORD and Spirit," etc.

You see, the Spirit's influence by the Word is to persuade them "to believe and obey."

This does not add up to "born again before faith." -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Monday, May 15, 2006 8:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You absolutely speak lies when it comes to money and founders. They do not receive money from SBC, period. As well as your lies about individuals you constantly talk about.

 
At Monday, May 15, 2006 10:43:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Anonymous, Hello!

You said of the Founders that they, do not receive money from SBC, period

It seems that indirectly, they do.

As for directly, if you have any influence with Tom Ascol, ask him to publish his donor's list.

I won't hold my breath.

Charles

 
At Monday, May 15, 2006 11:12:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

MORE ANONYMOUS ANIMUS

Anonymous said...


You absolutely speak lies when it comes to money and founders. They do not receive money from SBC, period.

We have never said the Founders were on the SBC "payroll," but have said that the Founders benefit by the influential support of SBC seminary faculty members who serve on their board and enhance their conferences. This helps produce more income from Southern Baptists who pay registration fees and buy Founders' products.

For instance, the featured speaker at a recent Founders' conference in the Houston area was Thomas Schreiner, who is on the SBTS payroll. His appearance reportedly drew a lot of Southern Baptists in this area -- as I was personally told by one of the staff at this church.

The Founders are operating as a leech on the SBC constituency when in fact they represent a distinct sectarianism within the SBC. SBC faculty members should not be using their status to lend influence to the development of a sect within the SBC.

Founders' propaganda is designed for proselyting the naive and unsuspecting who are misled to believe the Founders' palabber that they represent the Calvinist theology of past SBC leaders and confessions. This is only partially true, for the Founders are strongly into promoting the pedo-regenerationists' Hybrid Calvinism in contrast to 17th century Creedal Calvinism, as we have clearly demonstrated on this blogsite.

Where do you think the Founders got their anti-invitationalism, for instance? Ernest Reisinger got it from pedo-regenerationist Iain Murray and pawned it off via the Founders Ministries.

Where did they get their "born again before faith" heresy? Not from Boyce, Dagg, B. H. Carroll, or any of the Baptist Confessions of Faith.

Again, Reisinger picked it up from his association with the pedo-regenerationists at the Banner of Truth, publishers of Berkhof's "Sytematic Theology" which expounds this heresy. They feature pedo-regenerationists, such as R. C. Sproul and other Presbyertians, to further enhance this false doctrine.

The Founders are dependent upon Southern Baptists' money, and they
get into those SBs' pocketbooks by proselyting to Hybrid Calvinism. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Friday, May 19, 2006 4:49:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what you are saying is that if you are SBC leader or member and happen to also personally choose to be a part of another Chirstian Organization that you are a trader.
Interesting - total wrong on both of your parts, again! I am not interested in knowing peoples personal business regarding their finances and where they direct them if it isn't a matter of sinful misuse so you and Bob need to get a life regarding others personal business.

 
At Saturday, May 20, 2006 11:35:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

WHAT WE ARE SAYING
Anonymous said...


So what you are saying is that if you are SBC leader or member and happen to also personally choose to be a part of another Chirstian Organization that you are a trader.

We observed that Tom Ascol seemed to be critical of SBC-employee Paige Patterson for endorsing Ronnie Floyd. We thought this rather inconsistent since Founders has influential SBC-employees rendering support to the Founders which financially helps the Founders secure money from Southern Baptists.

Now that Al Mohler, a friend and supporter of the Founders, has also endorsed Floyd, it seems to be a moot point anymore.

I doubt if Tom Ascol will have much if anything to say about Mohler's endorsement, despite the fact Mohler shares the same status as Patterson as an SBC seminary president. -- Bob Ross

 
At Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no money secured from SBC other than private donations and funding form individual who give or participate in Founder events who happen to be Southern Baptist.

Dr. Patterson is a paid employee of the SBC.

I am unaware of Floyd's endorsment by Dr. Mohler but if he did do this I would have to say both men are wrong.

I stand with Mohler on most issues but not in all regarding the Politics of SBC. I am anti-Politics when it comes to Church Life and find the politics one of the SBC's greatest problems but only second to its theological ones.

 
At Monday, May 22, 2006 12:49:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

MONEY AGAIN

Anonymous said...

There is no money secured from SBC other than private donations and funding form individual who give or participate in Founder events who happen to be Southern Baptist.

We have never said otherwise. Our point has been --

The Founders Ministries are financially benefited by Southern Baptists' donations, conference fees, and the sale of products. The influence of SBC seminary faculty members who participate in the Founders and promote the Founders Ministries is thereforth consequential to those donations.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a lot of significant difference between that type of monetary support for the Founders in comparison to other forms by which people receive Southern Baptist money. It all comes out of Southern Baptists' pockets. -- Bob

 

Post a Comment

<< Home