Invitations: John Broadus vs. The Founders
Southern Baptists are in debt to Brother
Bob Ross for his outstanding work in defense of giving public invitations. As you probably know, most extreme/hybrid/hyper/neo Calvinists oppose the use of an altar call during church services.
Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry) has published several items which attempt to paint invitations as unscriptural in an attempt to get Southern Baptist churches to stop the practice despite the fact that God has used altar calls to glorify Himself by the drawing of throngs of lost souls to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
In this article, Brother Bob provides more evidence that John Broadus, one of the founders of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, supported the use of public invitations. Which brings up an interesting question: Why are The Founders against the founders?
If you are new to the debate over public invitations, you may want to read other items by Brother Bob on this blog,
Dangers In Not Giving Public Invitations,
Southern Baptist Founder (J. L. Dagg) Refutes Founders Regarding Public Invitations,
Spurgeon Pressed for "Decisions",
Contrast Between Professor Tom Nettles and the Late John A. Broadus on "Invitations",
John A. Broadus endorsed Public Invitations for Professing Faith in Christ,
and
MacArthur's Method?
Also, you should read Dr. Ken Keathley's article,
Rescuing the Perishing: A Defense of Giving Invitations.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Pilgrimpub@aol.com
Subject: JOHN BROADUS ON "INVITATIONS" [07/11--2006]
JOHN A. BROADUS ON THE USE OF "INVITATIONS" TO THE LOST TO CONFESS CHRIST [07/11--2006]
On May 30, 2006, we mailed
an item concerning the late
Dr. John A. Broadus (1827-1895) and the use of
"invitations" following the delivery of sermons. The material revealed that Dr. Broadus was saved during a public church invitation, and he taught the use of invitations in his book on the
Preparation and Delivery of Sermons (page 375).
Now, a few weeks later,
Brother Doug Kutilek has sent me the following, which reveals further information about the use of invitations during the life and ministry of John A. Broadus:
>>
Recently, Pastor Rick Shrader, Metro Baptist Church, KC, Mo., brought to my attention the following quotes from A. T. Robertson's
Life and Letters of John A. Broadus (1901). In a letter dated September 12, 1863, while JAB was serving as chaplain with the Army of Northern Virginia, he wrote:
"Yesterday morning I went to Blue Run and preached to Col. (John Thompson) Brown's Battery. Much interest there. Dr. J. R. Bagby, our former student, has been holding prayer meetings, and
several have professed conversion. Many wept during the sermon, and not at allusions to home, but to their sins, and God's great mercy. . . Gilmer is dreadfully opposed to
inviting men forward to prayer, etc., though Lacy, Hoge, and most of the Presbyterians,
do it just like the rest of us." (pp. 207-8).
J. William Jones, historian of the great revival in the Army of Northern Virginia, is quoted by Robertson regarding one particular preaching experience by Broadus, a sermon based on Proverbs 3:17, delivered to some 5,000 men, including much of the Confederate high command:
"At the close of the service they
came by the hundreds to ask an interest in the prayers of God's people, or to
profess a new-found faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, . . ." (p. 209). Obviously, an invitation to physically come to the front was made.
These are notable, in view of the resurgence of a hardshell-like perspective and practice among some Southern Baptist theologians--such a point of view is out of harmony with that of one of the
great founders of Southern Seminary, and, according to Armitage, the pre-eminent Baptist of America in the 19th century. -- Doug Kutilek
>>
We are grateful to Brother Kutilek for these references. As he says, in our day there is a pernicious and deleterious opposition to the use of invitations by the "super" Calvinists and Hybrid Calvinists of our time. They think the Holy Spirit "can save souls without invitations," and we doubt not that He can. He can also saved souls without the steroidal Calvinists and their emphasis on theological peccadilloes.
Among Southern Baptists, some of those today who profess to be "reforming" things and calling Baptists back to the theology of the Southern Baptist "Founders" such as Dr. Broadus, are actually contradicting Dr. Broadus when they come out against the use of invitations. Men such as
Dr. Tom Nettles at Southern Seminary, who opposes invitations, and
Pastor Tom Ascol, head of the "Founders Ministries," are misleading some to think that their anti-invitationalism is representative of Dr. Broadus and other founders of the Seminary, but such is not the case.
In
my former article on Dr. Broadus, I said:
>>
Dr. Nettles' objections reminded me of how much of a
contrast there is between Dr. Nettles' view on this matter and the view of one of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's founders,
Dr. John A. Broadus (1827-1895).
In his famous book,
On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, which I used years ago when I was teaching young preachers, Dr. Broadus has this comment on the topic of invitations in his discussion of the "Conduct of Public Worship:"
BROADUS:
"In many churches it is
customary to follow every sermon with an
'invitation' hymn, during which any who desire to
MAKE A PUBLIC PROFESSION OF FAITH or to become members of the church are
INVITED to present themselves by
COMING TO THE FRONT" (page 375, 1943 edition by Broadman Press).
Dr. Broadus himself was evidently converted under similar circumstances where invitations were used (
Life and Letters of John A. Broadus by A. T. Robertson, pages 33-35). I would not be surprised if Nettles himself was converted under similar circumstances.
>>
NOTE:Neither Dr. Nettles nor Dr. R. Albert Mohler has replied to my email to them a few weeks ago, inquiring about why a
Hardshell Primitive Baptist preacher, Lasserre Bradley Jr., who also opposes invitations, was invited to the campus of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. They seem to be having a hard time coming up with an "excuse" for such irresponsible conduct. Or . . . maybe they think that if they simply ignore me, I will forget about it. -- Bob L. Ross
Invitations: John Broadus vs. Tom Nettles
Below is from Brother Bob Ross.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Pilgrimpub@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Subject: NETTLES & BROADUS ON "INVITATIONS" [05/30--2006]
CONTRAST BETWEEN PROFESSOR TOM NETTLES AND THE LATE JOHN A BROADUS ON "INVITATIONS" [05/30--2006]I was revisiting Southern Seminary professor Dr. Tom Nettles' book,
By His Grace and For His Glory, and read the section wherein Brother Nettles presents his objections to public invitations (pages 411-424). I need not mention his arguments here, as I have before replied to just about every conceivable objection to public invitations, and I saw nothing "new" in Dr. Nettles' that I have not previously covered.
For the benefit of those who might be prone to think we are "picking on" Brother Nettles or anyone else, let me just remind you that we are not the ones who "started the war" about invitations. It was started by those who follow Iain Murray, Ernest Reisinger, the Pedo-regenerationists, the Founders, and others of the "Hybrid Calvinism" category of professing "Calvinism" who have attacked the use of public invitations. We think we have a right to defend what we believe and practice, and we will not condescend to these critics without response.
Dr. Nettles' objections reminded me of how much of a
contrast there is between Dr. Nettles' view on this matter and the view of one of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's founders,
Dr. John A. Broadus (1827-.
In his famous book,
On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, which I used years ago when I was teaching young preachers, Dr. Broadus has this comment on the topic of invitations in his discussion of the "Conduct of Public Worship:"
BROADUS: "In many churches it is
customary to follow every sermon with an 'invitation' hymn, during which any who desire to
MAKE A PUBLIC PROFESSION OF FAITH or to become members of the church are INVITED to present themselves by
COMING TO THE FRONT" (page 375, 1943 edition by Broadman Press).
Dr. Broadus himself was evidently converted under similar circumstances where invitations were used (
Life and Letters of John A. Broadus by A. T. Robertson, pages 33-35). I would not be surprised if Nettles himself was converted under similar circumstances.
The following is reported by Dr. Robertson about how young John won his first soul to the Lord during what was obviously a time of public invitation following a sermon:
>>
In a meeting a few months after John's conversion, the preacher urged all Christians
at the close of the service to move about and talk to the unconverted. John looked anxiously around to see if there was anybody present he could talk to about his soul's salvation. He had never done anything of the kind before. Finally he saw a man not very bright, named Sandy. He thought he might venture to speak to him at any rate; and
Sandy was converted. John soon went away to teach school. Whenever he came back Sandy would run across the street to meet him and say;
"Howdy, John? thankee, John. Howdy, John? thankee, John." Doctor Broadus often told of this first effort of his at soul-winning and would add: "And if ever I reach the heavenly home and walk the golden streets, I know the first person to meet me will be Sandy, coming and saying again:
'Howdy, John? thankee, John.'"
>>
Could you ever imagine an instance wherein Dr. Nettles, Dr. Schreiner, Dr. Mohler, Scott Morgan, Gene Bridges, R. C. Sproul, James White, or an adversary to public invitations would follow the example of young John Broadus and "move about and talk to the unconverted" at the close of a sermon?
Have Phil Johnson and Tom Ascol Bleached Out James White?
Are "
Dr." James White's friends bleaching him out?
Take Brother James' upcoming "Pulpit Crimes" cruise. When it was first announced months ago, Brothers Phil Johnson and Steve Camp were the headliners, along with James. Now Phil's name is nowhere to be found on the cruise promo.
http://www.sovereigncruises.org/AO2006/index.htm
Where's Phil? Why has he cancelled? Has he bleached out James White?
Then there was the "debate of the century," the Caner brothers vs. James White and Dr. Tom Ascol. Now James has announced that Brother Tom will not be at the October 16th debate.
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1435
Where's Tom? Why has he cancelled? Has he bleached out James White?
I won't even mention the dissing that Steve Camp gave to James about the Caner debate negotiations which James foolishly, and some say unethically, made public. OK, I guess I will mention it.
Brother Steve Camp said on the
Flounders blog, "I think that most would agree, this has been a
poor testimony all the way around ...."
Ouch! But with James' childish behavior what else could be said?
Of course, James couldn't let Steve get away with a remark like that. The next day, James blogged what I believe is a response to Steve, without mentioning his name, called "
Monday Morning Quarterbacks."
At the time of my writing this blog, Steve Camp was still "on" for the cruise, but who knows what will happen? Will Steve also bleach out James White?
Has James' pre-debate whining caused all of this? Will Steve Camp follow Phil and Tom's lead and cancel out on James? Will cruise ticket sales suffer now that Phil has abandoned ship?
Stay tuned.
Charles
UPDATE (7/24/06): On May 9, Phil posted the following on his blog,
I've had to withdraw from the Alpha & Omega national conference and cruise in November. An unexpected conflict arose that makes it impossible for me to go. Of course, my duties at Grace to You and Grace Community Church must take priority over everything else I do. So although I regret having to cancel, I couldn't anticipate or avoid the conflict, and I can't change it. It especially pains me to disappoint James White, but he is a good friend and has been very gracious about it. Likewise, Mike O'Fallon, who is arranging the cruise, was extremely kind and understanding, even though my withdrawal is a huge inconvenience to him. My profound apologies to all who are inconvenienced or disappointed by it.
"An unexpected conflict arose"? Very interesting.
Charles
HT: SBTS student
Gene M. Bridges falls down on "regeneration before faith"
Anyone who has read the bloviating blogger Gene M. Bridges knows it is impossible to keep up with him in a debate of words. You just can't match his verbose output. I'm not sure what he does for a living but it can't be pastoring or anything related. No one I know in ministry has time to write that many words.
Gene recently wrote about me on another blog and while I don't have the time to address his many inaccuracies and falsehoods, I would like to mention one.
Concerning regeneration, Gene said,
They [By "they," Gene means Brother Bob Ross and I.] continue to distort our words. Any and all statements that state "regeneration precedes faith" are immediately taken to mean, "Hardshell Doctrine," in which a man can be regenerated and then walk around for quite some time before repenting and believing in Christ.
We [By "we," I believe Gene means Reformed Calvinists. Like many Reformed bloggers he uses the 1st person plural rather liberally and indiscriminately. Perhaps Gene believes he is their leader or master or something, thus allowing him to use the 1st person plural.] do not deny means. We deny that men can believe in the gospel apart from the effectual call of the gospel, and that men are regenerated in order to believe and repent from sin, a process that is so close together in time as to be simultaneous. The relationship is logical and causal, but not temporal. We have explained this to Charles and Bob in excruciating detail, with numerous quotes from Spurgeon, Boyce, and many others, but they refuse correction.
Gene's ignorance of Reformed theology is appalling. I have three things to say about his comments.
One, Gene says that the Reformed view of "regeneration before faith" does not mean that "a man can be regenerated and then walk around for quite some time before repenting and believing in Christ." Gene is refuted by none other than John Frame, professor of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary.
Frame was once asked, "What doctrines must one believe to be saved?" He responded by saying, "None. I hold
the Reformed view that children in infancy, even before birth, can be regenerated and saved, presumably
before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs."
Memo to Gene M. Bridges: If a child is regenerated in infancy or even before birth and holds no "conscious doctrinal beliefs," you have a REGENERATED UNBELIEVER. Don't give me that nonsense about "The relationship is logical and causal, but not temporal." Reformed Theological Seminary professor John Frame clearly holds to a temporal relationship.
Two, Gene says that he has quoted "from Spurgeon, Boyce, and many others, but [Bob and I] refuse correction." Actually, it is Gene Bridges who refuses correction, even when the facts are clearly laid in front of him. Brother Bob Ross responded to Gene's bizarre "correction" in a series of posts and comments which I titled,
The Blunders of Gene M. Bridges.
Three, Gene's vain attempt to argue for a "regeneration before faith" heresy is refuted by none other than that great Southern Baptist, B. H. Carroll. Contrast the "regeneration before faith" disciples and promoters such as Gene Bridges, John Frame, R. C. Sproul, Mark Dever, and many of the faculty of Southern Seminary, with B. H. Carroll.
As the founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Carroll said,
(1) Every one born of God has the right be called a child of God.
(2) But no one has the right until he believes in Jesus.
(3) Therefore the new birth is not completed without faith.
No one, according to Dr. Carroll, is regenerated without faith!
Dr. Carroll has long been in heaven, and unfortunately, cannot defend his syllogism in person. Not to worry, on March 20, 2006, Brother Bob Ross wrote,
Dr. Carroll was the Founder of the Southwestern Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, and a greatly respected Baptist leader, educator, and Bible expositor among Southern Baptists. His Seminary became the largest Baptist seminary in the world.
I am willing to defend Dr. Carroll's syllogism in Public Debate with James White, R. C. Sproul, Pastor Scott Morgan, or any representative of the Founders Ministries.
It's now July 1, 2006. To my knowledge, Brother Bob has had
no takers. Not James White, not R. C. Sproul, not Scott Morgan, and
certainly not Gene M. Bridges.
I wonder why?
Charles
