Wednesday, July 19, 2006

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

66 Comments:

At Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:07:00 PM, Blogger Jeffro said...

You said,

"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."

Surely, you don't think that Dr. Broadus and Dr. Nettles would not have been converted if a pastor had not given an altar call. I am a Calvinist. I don't know any Calvinists who don't beg people to repent of their sin and place their faith in Christ. They do this whether they have an altar call or not. The invitation is always made to trust Christ, to repent from sin, to humble themselves before God.

Why then do we need to push people to come to the front of the church to do these things?

 
At Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:20:00 PM, Blogger Eye said...

Once again, an excellent piece of research and documentation! Thanks to Charles and Bob!!

In Him,

Eye

 
At Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:23:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

AN EVASION?
Jeffro said...


Surely, you don't think that Dr. Broadus and Dr. Nettles would not have been converted if a pastor had not given an altar call.

I think you are evading the point of the article -- Nettles opposes invitations yet claims he represents the "founders" of Southern Baptists.

Your comment smacks of a fatalistic attitude, like the man in the parable who buried his talent, pleading the sovereignty principle. (Matt. 25:24).

If you hold to Calvinism, as you profess, and to Calvinistic predestination, don't you believe it was predestinated for Broadus and Nettles to be saved during an invitation? So how could either one have been saved otherwise?

 
At Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:34:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

MISREPRESENTATION
Jeffro said...


Why then do we need to push people to come to the front of the church to do these things?

This representation is typical of many of those who write against invitations -- using distorted concepts and misrepresentations.

I am 71-years old and have never seen anyone "pushed to come" to the front of the Baptist church.

You say, I don't know any Calvinists who don't beg people to repent of their sin and place their faith in Christ.

If they do this, what is wrong with when they do it to also encourage a public confession of Christ during an invitation, like when Broadus and thousands of other Southern Baptists publicly confessed Christ as Saviour?

 
At Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:22:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

FOUNDERS' FLOUNDERING ABOUT "INVITATIONS"

Bob to Charles:

On the Founders and Invitations, Charles, I want to again call attention to what Ernest Reisinger, late founder of the Founders, and D. M. Allen said about invitations in the Founders' book on "Worship."

They apply the Presbyterian/Campbellite hermeneutic of "command, example, and inference" to do away with the public invitation to the unsaved to accept Christ and come forward to publicly confess Him -- despite the fact this is probably the very way whereby most of the anti-invitationists themselves made their professions of faith.

Despite their effort to discredit the use of invitations, I was amazed to read later int he book, on pages 150, 151, where they actually concede that "walking down an aisle is neither commanded nor forbidden," and explain that what is of concern to them is merely the "reason why people are walking to the front."

It appears that they will allow and approve of the public invitation to be A-OK when scrutinized by their "regulative principle" shibboleth if the "reason" for coming forward is for anything other than its being "required for salvation."

They allege that "the altar call can serve a useful and appropriate purpose" in regard to:

(1) A way of expressing that person's desire to be baptized;

(2) To join the fellowship of the local assembly;

(3) To dedicate one's life to missionary service;

(4) Coming to the front to pray.

"These types of altar calls," they say, "do not in any fashion violate the regulative principle. . . . As long as the implication is eliminated that coming forward is required for salvation, the altar call can serve a useful and appropriate purpose."

Isn't it wonderful, Charles, that there are Founders who have such discernment in regard to what is approved or disapproved by the "regulative principle"?

I do not recall ever hearing an altar call which made "coming forward" a requirement for salvation, and I certainly would not approve of such a "requirement" as being true to the Gospel.

But what I think these Founders are really saying is that a lost sinner should not be urged or invited to come forward for any reason whatsoever.

All of those individuals in numbers 1 to 4 (above) are presumably "saved" already, so it is OK for them to be invited to come -- but you will notice that a lost sinner is not invited to come for any reason -- not even to come forward if he wants help in regard to the question, "What must I do to be saved?"

To me, Charles, this borders on being something similar to the Pharisees of Jesus' day who were rebuked by the Lord for their "shutting up" the kingdom to those that would enter. What better time to urge a lost sinner to believe on and confess Christ publicly than immediately after a Gospel sermon?

 
At Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:47:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob, Hello!

You said, "this borders on being something similar to the Pharisees of Jesus' day who were rebuked by the Lord for their "shutting up" the kingdom to those that would enter. What better time to urge a lost sinner to believe on and confess Christ publicly than immediately after a Gospel sermon?"

Indeed. Your article, Dangers In Not Giving Public Invitations, clearly shows that there is great danger in not giving an invitation after a public presentation of the gospel.

I don't think that Tom Nettles, Tom Ascol, Scott Morgan, and the rest of the Flounders will be satisfied until all the churches in the SBC are the size of James White's church - or smaller.

Charles

 
At Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:55:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is there a danger in not giving a public invitation? I don't recall public invitations in the scripture?

 
At Thursday, July 20, 2006 2:14:00 PM, Blogger John said...

The quote of Broadus does NOT say what you want it to say. It simply documents that some churches at that time had a custom of an invitation after the sermon. Unless there is more to the quote than you presented, Broadus does not recommend or criticize the practice. He only reports that it was happening.

Invitations only came about in the mid-19th century. Do you really think that evangelism was impossible before then and the church was lost without this innovation?

 
At Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:30:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

BROADUS
John said...

The quote of Broadus does NOT say what you want it to say.

Oh, but it says aplenty!

Within context, Broadus is instructing his students on the "Conduct of Public Worship," and he is presenting the various customary elements which are used -- such as Scripture reading, singing, preaching, prayer, hymns, invitation,
benediction, etc. He includes invitations as one of those elements, and notes that the use of the "invitation" is "customary" in "many churches."

Also, in Robertson's "Life and Letters of John A. Broadus," favorable references to the use of invitations occur on pages 35, 117, 137, 208, and 209.

On page 208, Broadus refers to a few who were "opposed to inviting men forward," and indicates that he rather was in the practice of using invitations.

Not only so, but Dr. Broadus preached for D. L. Moody's Northfield Bible Institute, stayed in Moody's home, and was a supporter of Moody's great meetings in Louisville in the winter of 1888-89 (page 365). Moody was known for urging public confessions of faith in Christ, and he is referred to by Broadus as an "honored friend."

Furthermore, Broadus said of Moody, "I have never heard Mr. Moody speak without gaining fresh and wholesome impulses in the right direction. He is one of the most useful and justly honored Christian men of the age" (page 429).

Broadus' attitude toward Moody and his evangelism is a stark contrast to "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinists such as Iain Murray and the Founders who repudiate Moody.

 
At Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:37:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob, Hello!

You wrote, Broadus' attitude toward Moody and his evangelism is a stark contrast to "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinists such as Iain Murray and the Founders who repudiate Moody.

True. James Boyce also "was so committed to evangelism that he offered the Seminary grounds to D.L. Moody when he brought his tent to Louisville."

Another Southern Seminary notable who loved DL Moody was Dr. A.T. Robertson. Robertson "served as a counselor in a revival meeting held by D.L. Moody."

Bob, isn't it amazing how the Flounders trash DL Moody every chance they get when the real Founders of the SBC loved Moody?

Seems like to me Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry) should change their name. I guess it's just another example of "let me pull the wool over your eyes" practiced by Tom Nettles and friends.

Charles

 
At Saturday, July 22, 2006 2:55:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

FOUNDERS vs MOODY
Charles said...


Bob, isn't it amazing how the Flounders trash DL Moody every chance they get when the real Founders of the SBC loved Moody?

As I have previously mentioned, Charles, it was Iain Murray of The Banner of Truth Trust who promoted an anti-Moody attitude imbibed by Ernest Reisinger who became the founder of the Founders and served as a promoter of Murray's writings.

I called attention to Murray's attitude in a review I wrote of his 1966 book, "The Forgotten Spurgeon," in which book Murray expressed his disagreement with Spurgeon's endorsement of Moody.

Murray defended the Scotch Presbyterian pedo-regenerationist, John Kennedy, who campaigned harshly against Moody while C. H. Spurgeon publicly preached in defense of Moody.

The current Founders are simply perpetuating what was begun in the 1800s by pedos such as Hybrid John Kennedy, promoted later by pedo Iain Murray, and extended thru Reisinger and the Founders, friends of the pedos.

Their negative attitude therefore is not the same as the pro-Moody attitude of Spurgeon and those men who founded the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, such as Broadus and Boyce.

 
At Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:20:00 AM, Blogger posttinebraelux said...

All,
I am new to this sphere of the blogworld (unfortunately not to the wine sphere), and am very interested in learning about invitations. I personally think invitations are unnecessary based on the following reasons: (1) there is no Biblical precedent for invitations, (2) I was always under the impression that the 'public profession of faith' was represented in the baptism, not walking down the isle during an invication, (3) the sermon delivered on Sunday mornings should be directed at discipleship, not evangelism - as those in attendance are, with few exceptions, professing believers, and (4) doesn't the 'come down and pray with the pastor' thing smack of Papacy? At any rate, please do not respond with inciteful or caustic rhetoric. I am not here to argue, but rather to be edified and to edify. :) I, in return, will do my best to respond in loving fashion as well.

Sincerely,

PTL

 
At Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:33:00 AM, Blogger Jeffro said...

bob,

Your understanding of salvation and soteriology is undeniably poor. Let us leave Calvinism out of it completely. You obviously believe in "decisional regeneration," which is found nowhere in Scripture. "Surely you don't think that Dr. Broadus and Dr. Nettles would not have been converted if a pastor had not given an altar call?" I reiterate this question, because you obviously believe that they would not have been able to "decide to follow Jesus" if there had been no altar call. You believe that there salvation had everything to do with walking down the aisle, and praying a prayer. This again is not biblical.

To answer your accusation of fatalism. Fatalism is the belief that what will be, will be no matter what. This is nowhere near a Biblical view of Divine Providence which I have. You are confusing God's sovereignty in salvation, with God's providential control of all things. Which again proves that you are no Calvinist Flyswatter. You obviously don't understand Calvinism well enough to even swing at it

 
At Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:37:00 AM, Blogger Jeffro said...

bob,

To answer you accusation of misrepresentation. I ask you to deal with integrity with my statement from my first post.

"I am a Calvinist. I don't know any Calvinists who don't beg people to repent of their sin and place their faith in Christ. They do this whether they have an altar call or not. The invitation is always made to trust Christ, to repent from sin, to humble themselves before God."

Therefore, if this type of invitation is given who is misrepresenting whom? I assure you that I am not misrepresenting the psychological manipulation to get people to the altar in many Baptist churches, though not all of them.

 
At Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:35:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
posttinebraelux said...

(1) there is no Biblical precedent for invitations,

This is a superfluous objection if you approve of anything related to faith and its practice which has "no biblical precedent."

For example, do you approve of an indoor heated baptistry? Do you approve of the use of hymnbooks? Do you approve of the use a "church building," pews, collection plates or offering boxes, air conditioning, etc.? Do you approve of Sunday Schools? Where is the "precedent" for such as these things?

(2) I was always under the impression that the 'public profession of faith' was represented in the baptism, not walking down the isle during an invication,

Then you have obviously been under a false "impression."

One must confess faith in Christ before being baptized, and this necessitates some type of format. Since there is no unique format established in Scripture as the one-and-only approved format for confessiong Christ, then none can be forbidden so long at it serves the purpose of one's confessing Christ. The public invitation serves that purpose very well.

(3) the sermon delivered on Sunday mornings should be directed at discipleship, not evangelism -

Where is the scriptural "precedent" for this assertion? If you require a "precedent" for an invitation, you should be consistent and require precendent for the content of the Sunday morning sermon, shouldn't you?

(4) doesn't the 'come down and pray with the pastor' thing smack of Papacy?

I have never observed the Pope urging people to repent, believe in Christ, and come forward to confess Him as Saviour. And, I have never observed a Baptist preacher do what the Pope does.

 
At Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:12:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

"DECISIONAL REGENERATION"?
Jeffro said...


You obviously believe in "decisional regeneration," which is found nowhere in Scripture.

Are you saying that the Word of God applied to the sinner by the Holy Spirit to create faith in Christ does not simultaneously produce a "decision" on the part of the sinner in his heart to believe on and confess Christ as Saviour?

Are you saying that "regeneration" leaves one in a state of "indecision" in regard to Christ as Saviour?

Are you perhaps one of those who, as a infant, had a "decision" made in your behalf by parental "sponsors" to receive "baptism"?

Or, as an older person, did you get baptized without making a "decision" to publicly confess Christ and be baptized?

 
At Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:20:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

MISREPRESENTATION
Jeffro said...


To answer you accusation of misrepresentation. I ask you to deal with integrity with my statement from my first post.

You refer to "integrity," but your reference to "pushing" people down the aisle is certainly not a responsible representation of the normal public invitation which I have witnessed. What person has ever done this?

I assure you that I am not misrepresenting the psychological manipulation to get people to the altar in many Baptist churches, though not all of them.

I doubt if you can name a single pastor who ever "pushed" anyone down the aisle during an invitation. If you know one, let's invite him to come down the aisle in repentance for his doing so!

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:26:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

"SWINGINT AT CALVINISM"?
Jeffro said...


You obviously don't understand Calvinism well enough to even swing at it

I do not recall any attempts to "swing at Calvinism," but there have been several swings and hits on Hybrid Calvinism and Hybrid Calvinists.

The fact is, we have defended Creedal Calvinism on regeneration in contrast to Hybrid Calvinism, and quoted the Calvinist Confessions to substantiate that defense.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:15:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

posttinebraelux,

You will not find this blog to be of any form of edification. The two men who talk to each other as well as to themselves will be well the "Papacy" of theology trying to direct you and correct you.

You made many valid points to be considered and many correct precedents based on Scripture.

Bob asked many question many "do you approve" questions - You can approve something and it still not be biblically based yet something that can be done without being sinful or contrary to the Word.
Ex. "Do you approve of Sunday School"? Well of course you approve of any form of time of study of God's word - label it as you like it is commanded from God's Word. Oh, and it is to be daily not according to your local SBC.
Bob's dribble can go on and on and he has an "correct answer" for all things relating to God. Its just to bad he isn't so connect that he is always right!

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:25:00 AM, Blogger posttinebraelux said...

Bob,
Regarding your rebuttal to my first point - I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think much of what we do in our 'services' today is superflous and not truly reflective of the early church. I think it would be a great idea to model our services after the practice of the early church - and if that means getting rid of the hymnals and Sunday School, then so be it. I'm glad we agree on that point.

Regarding your rebuttal to my second point, you're saying that you don't believe the baptism to be the 'public profession of faith?

Regarding your rebuttal to my third point, there is at least an 'implied' precedent for discipleship 'preaching' as opposed to 'evangelistic' preaching on Sunday mornings. In I Cor. 14, the 'others' are directed to 'judge' what the prophets have said during a worship meeting. It is unlikely that Paul would have been encouraging pagans to judge that which was delivered by a prophet (remember the pearls before swine metaphor?). There is not even an 'implied' precedent for an invitation.

Regarding your rebuttal to my fourth point, I honestly wish that the invitation time didn't smack of papacy, but it truly does. We offer for our parishioners to come down and 'pray with the pastor'. I'm sure the intention is not blatant, but it is implied that, somehow, if we just involve the pastor (or deacon) in our petitions, we'll be granted better audience with Holy God. While I'm sure some would respond by saying, "I have no idea what you're talking about", if they are honest, they will admit that this truly is the case.
I am not trying to imply that an invitation is sinful - my apologies if I've offended you in some way (your reply was very defensive and terse). I am simply saying that, in my opinion, the invitation is superflous and unnecessary in the environment that it is most often utilized (the Sunday morning worship service). Does it have a place? Most certainly, but not, under normal circumstances, in the Sunday morning service. Does that make sense?

Sincerely,

PTL

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:31:00 AM, Blogger posttinebraelux said...

Bob,
With regard to being 'pushed' down an isle, the pushing can be physical, emotional, or spiritual. While I've never witnessed someone 'physically' pushing another down an isle, I have OFTEN witnessed the 'emotional' manipulation of audiences. Surely you have witnessed this as well? I think that is what Jeffro is in reference to - at least that's what I'd be in reference to.
With regard to decisional regeneration, I believe in a 'time' sense, the two might appear to be 'simultaneous', but in a 'chicken or egg' sense, I think the regeneration has to come before the decision, else salvation would be a work (and I know this is an old hat argument for you and I'm not looking for a dissertation regarding choice salvation - I'm just making the point that just because it may appear 'simultaneous' with regard to time, God works outside of time).

Sincerely,

PTL

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:52:00 AM, Blogger volfan007 said...

thank you charles and bob for such an informative blog. you fellas know what you are talking about. thank God for you.


volfan007

ps. i had dr. nettles in class at seminary. it was exhausting and nearly a waste of time to be in his class. everyday, all we heard about was who was a calvinist and who wasnt and how much of a calvinist was this guy and such. dr. nettles was crusading for five point calvinism everyday. it's like he's obsessed with it, as are his disciples. we need to pray that the Lord will help our beloved sbc to stay clear of such a dangerous extreme.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:22:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

WHAT IF?
Jeffro said...


I reiterate this question, because you obviously believe that they would not have been able to "decide to follow Jesus" if there had been no altar call.

You say you are a "Calvinist," but you seem to be caught in pinch" in regard to the Providential ways of the Lord.

If God saved them in connection with the use of the altar call, was it foreordained to be so? If it was foreordained, could they have chosen to be saved in any other circumstance? -- or at you put it, been able to "decide to follow Jesus" if there had been no altar call?

You are not one of those "Plan A" and "Plan B" type of Calvinists, are you? -- that is, if Plan A won't work, then God will use Plan B?

According to your Calvinism, if they had not been saved in accordance with what was foreordained, how could they have been saved?

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:49:00 PM, Blogger posttinebraelux said...

Bob,
The dilemma you pose to Jeffro is a non sequitur. God never saves anyone 'in connection' with an alter call. Rom. 1:16 tells us that God saves us by the Gospel through (Eph. 2) His grace. An alter call is never part of the salvation equation. I'm not sure about Jeffro, but I'd say that that person was foreordained to be saved at that time period. The fact that there was an alter call, and someone responded to it, has nothing whatsoever to do with their salvation. If there had been no alter call, they'd still have been saved - they just wouldn't have 'walked down the isle'. Surely you're not suggesting that the 'walking down the isle' is a part of salvation?

Sincerely,

PTL

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:04:00 PM, Blogger volfan007 said...

also, did you all know that dr. nettles was fired from mid america baptist seminary in memphis, tn due to his belief in regeneration before a person gets saved? that, and his divisive spirit over five point calvinism. he and his disciples had the whole seminary in turmoil during his tenure there.


volfan007

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:29:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

GET RID OF SUNDAY SCHOOL?
posttinebraelux said...


I think it would be a great idea to model our services after the practice of the early church - and if that means getting rid of the hymnals and Sunday School, then so be it. I'm glad we agree on that point.

Unfortunately for this brother, there is no "model" of "services" which is specifically "authorized" as the official "model" in the Scriptures for "Sunday" or any other day or night of the week.
Campbellites have been trying for years to "establish" something of that sort, and they have done nothing but create division and legalistic sectarianism.

I believe hymnals and Sunday Schools are great and invaluable ideas for use in public services -- and the same goes for invitations.

You don't need "precedents" in Scripture for this or hundreds of other practical and useful matters relating to the church. The idea you have to have a precedent for such matters is utterly ridiculous. It is a form of "Christian Pharisaism" -- binding where God has not bound.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:53:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

BAPTISM?
posttinebraelux said...


Regarding your rebuttal to my second point, you're saying that you don't believe the baptism to be the 'public profession of faith?

What I have said -- many times -- is that BEFORE basptism there is to be a CONFESSION of Christ as Saviour. One must make a sound confession before he is to be baptized, as Philip conducted the case with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37.

Spurgeon, for example, had converts to make their confession of faith in Christ at the Tabernacle before the church.

The public invitation affords that same opportunity, and we practice it where I attend. If one comes forward to make a confession of faith in Christ and and/or request to be baptized, he is given the opportunity of immediately confessing before the church.

There is oral confession, and then later baptismal profession according to its symbolism.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:04:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

MANIPULATION
posttinebraelux said...


While I've never witnessed someone 'physically' pushing another down an isle, I have OFTEN witnessed the 'emotional' manipulation of audiences.

It all depends upon the CONTENT of what accounts for the alleged "manipulation."

If it is the truth of the Gospel that is presented, then who can find fault with urging the lost sinner to (1) immediately accept it, and (2) publicly confess Christ as Saviour?

But on the other hand, there is also "manipulation" in the case of those who oppose invitations -- whereby sinners are manipulated to NOT make a public confession of Christ. In fact, they are not only manipulated not to confess Christ, they are actually "barred" in a practical sense, for there is no opportunity given to them to come forward and confess Christ for no invitation to do so is extended.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:20:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

SIMULTANEOUS?
posttinebraelux said...


With regard to decisional regeneration, I believe in a 'time' sense, the two might appear to be 'simultaneous', but in a 'chicken or egg' sense, I think the regeneration has to come before the decision

Since according to Creedal Calvinism -- as we have demonstrated -- the origination of faith is by the instrumentality of the Word applied by the accompanying power of the Holy Spirit (1 Thess. 1:5), it is absolutlely of the very essence of regeneration that the work of the Spirit and the act of believing ("decision") are simultaneous.

One does not exist without the other. Otherwise, you have a "regenerated unbeliever," or an "unregenerated believer."

Like when God breathed life into Adam, he simultaneously "chose" to breath.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:27:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L, Ross said...

EDIFICATION?
Anonymous said...

posttinebraelux,

You will not find this blog to be of any form of edification.


Well, as long as you and other such brethren make comments, the site will not be a total loss as to edification, will it?

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:35:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob Ross said, on the other hand, there is also "manipulation" in the case of those who oppose invitations -- whereby sinners are manipulated to NOT make a public confession of Christ. In fact, they are not only manipulated not to confess Christ, they are actually "barred" in a practical sense ....

I never thought of it in that sense before but you are right, Brother Bob.

Don't forget also, the hybrid "preparationalism" of Mark Dever which forbids baptism to anyone under the age of eighteen.

Why do these DEFORMED, er, Reformed brethren insist on putting bars in front of people who simply want to obey Christ?

More importantly, knowing their unscriptural practices, why do some Southern Baptists hold them up as "heroes" of the faith?

Charles

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:42:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

ALTAR CALL & SALVATION
posttinebraelux said...


God never saves anyone 'in connection' with an alter call.

There are thousands if not millions of Baptists and others who will tell you that they confessed their faith in Christ "in connenction" with an invitation as to circumstance, saying they were saved either before, during, or after responding to the invitation.

Even many of those who now oppose invitations will tell you that they were saved in connection with an invitation as the circumstance.

God can save anywhere, anytime, and in connection with anything -- just so the Gospel is preached in the circumstance. The "format" is irrelevant, as salvation comes by means of the Word as His instrument and the Holy Spirit as the efficient power.

You may recall that the thief was saved "in conncection" with his being crucified on the cross, the jailer was saved in the jailhouse, and Saul was saved on the road, etc.

The Word and Spirit are not "bound" by any external circumstance.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:45:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Anonymous, Hello!

You said to posttinebraelux,

"You will not find this blog to be of any form of edification."

The fact that your anonymous comment has been posted is more than you'll get from the Founders blog, which does not allow anonymous comments, and James White's blog, which does not allow comments from anyone!

I wonder what Tom and James are afraid of?

Charles

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:48:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

WHY?
charles said . . .


Why do these DEFORMED, er, Reformed brethren insist on putting bars in front of people who simply want to obey Christ?

I suppose they must be afraid of getting one of the "elect" saved too soon, or one of the "non-elect" to make a false profession.

In the case of pedos, they may fear that one "regenerated" as a baby may be "deceived" to think he was not really born again as a baby. D. L. Moody has hundreds of this type in his English campaigns wherein so many pedos professed salvation. It caused quite a disturbance on the part of the pedo-regenerationists.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:57:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

NETTLES
volfan007 said...

also, did you all know that dr. nettles was fired from mid america baptist seminary in memphis, tn due to his belief in regeneration before a person gets saved?

I personally have no knowledge of this, and I must therefore disavow any personal endorsement of the report unless it is proven to be the case.

I will say, however, that if Dr. Nettles held to the "born again before faith" idea at Memphis, he should have been fired. This is Hybrid Calvinism, and should not be permitted to be taught by a faculty member in a Baptist Seminary. There are several pedo seminaries where he might seek employment, if he wishes to teach this heresy.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:58:00 PM, Blogger posttinebraelux said...

Bob,
Maybe I haven't been clear regarding my position on invitations - or other 'extra' Biblical traditions if I may call them that (SS School, hymnals, etc.). I would not propose that any do away with such - thus I cannot consider myself a 'Christian Pharisee'. There are those, however, who would staunchly oppose doing away with such - is it possible that they are the ones who are the Christian Pharisees? My concern is, and always has been, make sure we understand why we do something and, hopefully, have a strong Biblical basis for such. With respect to the confession (as you'd see done at the alter) vs. profession (which would be the baptism?), I had never understood Paul's command to confess Christ (I assuming you're referencing Rom. 10?) to be 'before the church'. I had always understood it to mean that we are to confess Christ to ALL - both with our mouths and with our lives (remember later in that passage where Paul says, "how beautiful are the FEET of those who preach the good news"). I'm not sure how anyone could be accused of barring someone else from confessing Christ just because there was no alter call. I know of many churches who don't have alter calls on Sunday nights. Does that mean that if God regenerates a soul on a Sunday night, then that sould is 'barred' from confessing Christ? That argument is just not logical. And I agree with you wholeheartedly about the 'regenerated unbeliever'. Again, they may 'appear' simultaneous (i.e. true faith necessarily results in good works), but they cannot be synergistic - else we're not as spiritually dead as we think we are. :) Again, thanks for the Christian interaction. It is helping me develop and strengthen my thoughts, ideas, and beliefs.

Sincerely,

PTL

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:13:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

volfan007, Hello!

You wrote, (Tom Nettles) "and his disciples had the whole seminary in turmoil during his tenure there."

I don't doubt it. Brother Bob Ross has contrasted Nettles' view of the invitation system with John Broadus, one of the founders of Southern Seminary. Nettles rejects the invitation system despite the fact that the real founders of the SBC and probably 99.9% of all Southern Baptist churches use it to invite people to faith in Jesus Christ. Makes you wonder why Dr. Mohler would hire Nettles to teach at Southern Seminary!

Southern Baptists are waking up to what Mohler, Nettles, and others are doing to Southern Seminary and they do not like what they see. It's only a matter of time before some house cleaning takes place.

Charles

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:23:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Jeffro said, I don't know any Calvinists who don't beg people to repent of their sin and place their faith in Christ.

I hear this frequently. In regards to the extreme/hyper/hybrid/neo "born again before faith" Calvinists, I don't believe you but for the sake of argument I will assume you are right. These Calvinists may be begging people to repent but God seems to have ordained the "Arminians" to bring them in.

See Brother Bob Ross' answer to the question, "Why are Calvinist churches usually so small?"

Charles

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:43:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

volfan007, Hello!

You said, did you all know that dr. nettles was fired from mid america baptist seminary in memphis, tn due to his belief in regeneration before a person gets saved?

I've seen this mentioned before in several places on the Internet. I knew he used to teach there but I am not personally familiar with the reason he left. If he was teaching "born again before faith" then termination would have been proper. Any seminary which is connected to the SBC either through the cooperative program or "unofficially" such as Mid-America should not tolerate such heresy.

Let me say again, I personally have no knowledge as to why Nettles left Mid-America. I do know that he taught his hybrid/extreme/neo Calvinism there and Dr. Mohler hired him knowing that fact.

Volfan007, are you a MABTS alum or have some other connection?

Charles

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:24:00 PM, Blogger Jeffro said...

PTL,

Thank you for the defense in my absence.

Bob,

You my dear brother are apparently confusing the means of regeneration and faith, which is the preaching of the Gospel, with an altar call.

Nettles, Broadus and anyone else that has been saved were not saved by the altar call. They were saved by grace through faith at the preaching of the Gospel.

Finally, in your defense of the invitation, do you dismiss an invitation to come to the pastor, deacons or elders after the service? No music playing. No manipulating. Just a cordial invitation to meet and speak about serious spiritual matters. This is an invitation isn't it?

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:05:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

SYNERGISM?
posttinebraelux said...

Again, they may 'appear' simultaneous (i.e. true faith necessarily results in good works), but they cannot be synergistic - else we're not as spiritually dead as we think we are. :)

I am of a different point of view on what you call "synergistic." This is a "red herring" often used by Hybrids.

Spurgeon said, "Not a grain of faith exists in all the world except that which He has Himself created" (MTP, Vol. 33, page 279).

If that be the case, there is no possibility of "synergism" in either the new birth nor the Christian life thereafter. ALL FAITH is created by God by means of His Word and Spirit.

Therefore, when we call on the "dead" to believe, we are doing so out of the confidence that the Word and Spirit of God will create the faith. The only ones who believe are the "dead," like Ezekiel's dry bones (Ez. 37).

Our oldest Baptist Confession of 1644 says that the sinner who is "dead in trespasses and sins, DOTH BELIEVE AND IS CONVERTED by no less power thant that which raised Christ from the dead" (Article 24).

So "synergism" is simply the mythology invented by the Hybrid Calvinist "theologians" who use it in a psuedo-logical manner to promote their distortion of "monergism."

True monergism is the power of God by means of His Word and Spirit -- not by the Spirit alone or without instrumentalaity, as promoted by pseudo "monergists."

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:20:00 PM, Blogger volfan007 said...

i am an alumnus of mabts, yes. i was there during nettles stay there. i had classes under him.

dr. nettles is a fine man, and he is a christian. he can even be funny and humurous at times. but, he was fired for believing in regeneration before conversion. of that, i am sure. i was there. and, the fact that he was so hyped up on calvinism and causing strife was why they took a long, hard look at his theology and if he should remain, or not.

listen, no matter how you give the invitation to come to Christ...the main thing is that you invite men to come to Christ. whether its during the service, or to meet you after the service, or to meet with you that nite over coffee and donuts..whatever. the main thing is that we invite lost men to come to Christ.

i do find it ridiculous the lengths that some five pointers go to make sure that it's a true conversion. the ethiopian eunuch was ready to get saved right away after phillip preached to him...was he not? phillip didnt tell him to wait until he understood the book of romans..which wasnt out yet. dr. nettles told a fella that was ready to get saved to go home and read the book of romans and see if God would save him. i heard him say this with my own ears during a share time at seminary. i mean, the guy was ready to get saved...wanted to get saved...and dr. nettles told him to go read the book of romans and see if he was the elect or not.....good gracious...lead that guy to Jesus.

volfan007

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:24:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

ALTAR CALL
Jeffro said...


You my dear brother are apparently confusing the means of regeneration and faith, which is the preaching of the Gospel, with an altar call.

Not at all. What I am saying is that when the Gospel is preached, there should be the opportunity afforded for those who hear it to respond, believing and confessing Christ as Saviour, and the public invitation is a suitable format for doing so.

Some opposers says, "Meet the Pastor in his office," like Martin Lloyd-Jones practiced. There is no Scripture for this method, either.


Nettles, Broadus and anyone else that has been saved were not saved by the altar call.

But they were saved "in connnection with" the use of a public invitation, right? So how does that detract from their conversion, or add anything to it? Their salvation is still by grace, not by the invitation as such.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:07:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

JUST FACE THE FACTS

Bob to Anti-Invitationists:

Why don't you just face the fact that anti-invitationalism in the U. S. A. primarily derives from the writings of pedo Iain Murray. Murray based his "whole case" on the so-called "order of salvation" (The Invitation System, page 19). Practically every anti-invitation article I have read will refer to Murray's material.

Murray is a pedo-regenerationist, and as such would have little to no use for the Baptist practice of inviting sinners to believe on Christ and publicly come forward to confess Him as Saviour.

Murray is the publisher of pedo-regenerationist Louis Berkhof who teaches that regeneration takes place in infancy. Ernest Reisinger and the Founders were greatly influenced in their doctrine by Murray and Berkhof.

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:41:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Volfan007, Hello!

You wrote, the main thing is that we invite lost men to come to Christ.

i do find it ridiculous the lengths that some five pointers go to make sure that it's a true conversion.


Volfan, you bless my heart! Amen!

Charles

 
At Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:27:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

WHAT A FARCE!

Bob to Charles:

I wonder, Charles, if you have seen the farce on the Founders' blog where they are writing about the "integrity" in regard to seminary professors' signing a confession of faith?

Here is a Hybrid Calvinist "born again before faith" sect which departs from every Baptist Confession from 1644 onward in favor of pedo-regenerationist theology on the new birth, and they are whining about the "integrity" of seminary professors?

What a farce!

If all the Hybrid Calvinist professors were fired at Louisville for their lack of integrity with respect to Baptist confessions of faith, how many do you suppose would be left?

 
At Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:30:00 AM, Blogger posttinebraelux said...

Bob,
I'm not sure I understood all of what you said, but I think I am in 100% agreement with you regarding monergism and synergism. My point was that, while regeneration and confession may appear simultaneous, they cannot, in a 'theological' sense, be. If we are dead, regeneration must precede confession (a work). I think we agree on the 'dead' part, I'm just not sure why the 'simultaneous' part is such a big issue for you? Please help me understand.

Sincerely,

PTL

 
At Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:34:00 AM, Blogger posttinebraelux said...

Bob,
I'm not concerned who holds what position - I'm concerned about what the Bible says to the issue and making sure that whatever position I hold lines up with my understanding of the Bible. Whether some pedo-regenerationist holds the same position is irrelevant. I'm not even sure what a pedo-regenerationist is. I will not ever have to answer to Iain Murry or Bob Ross for my beliefs. I will, however, have to answer to Christ for my beliefs. That's why I'm here - you and I obviously disagree and I am interested in understanding the 'heart' of the issue.

Sincerely,

PTL

 
At Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:24:00 PM, Blogger Jeffro said...

Bob,

No, no one is saved "in connection with" an altar call. Everyone who is saved, is saved in connection with the preaching of the Gospel and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The altar call or invitation to make their repentance and confession public has nothing to do with their salvation. In fact, if they are making this public they are saved already.

Personally, I feel much is being made over the "invitation and altar call" by both camps. God does the saving. If you want to give a public invitation and altar call, give it, as long as you are not manipulating. If you don't want to, don't.

Obviously some are afraid of manipulating so they don't give them. And others, think the altar call saves people, so they have to give them.

 
At Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:34:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

SIMULTANEOUS AGAIN
posttinebraelux said...


My point was that, while regeneration and confession may appear simultaneous, they cannot, in a 'theological' sense, be.

I'm not sure you meant to say "confession," but if you meant to say "faith," then my reply is that what Baptists have generally called "regeneration" is accomplished or completed by the Spirit when faith is originated by the Word applied by the Spirit.

As Dr. B. H. Carroll, founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, contended, "repentance and faith are the constituent elements of regeneration," and so "regeneration cannot be complete without faith" (Sermons, page 177; Interpretation of the English Bible, Vol. 10, page 294).

The New Birth is not something which is enacted apart from the simultaneous origination of the "constituent elements" of repentance and faith, but rather it is the work of the Spirit, by means of the Word as His instrument, in the origination of repentance and faith in the hitherto "dead" sinner (separated from God), thereby bringing life (union with Christ).

Until the sinner has life (union with Christ), he has not been born again. As Dr. Carroll further contended, the pre-faith
"influence"
of the Spirit is not "regeneration" (Sermons, page 178).

"If regeneration is completed without the use of means and before the subject is penitent or believing, then we have a child of God who is yet in his sins, impenitent, without faith, and hence without Christ, wihch is philosophically impossible. . . .

"Every one born of God has the right to be called a child of God. But no one has the right until he believes in Jesus. Therefore THE NEW BIRTH IS NOT COMPLETED WITHOUT FAITH." (Interpretation of the English Bible, Vol. 10, pages 286, 287).

This contrasts with the Hybrid Calvinist, pedo-regenerationist view, which makes "regeneration" an act separate and apart from, and prior to, the use of means in the origination of repentance, faith, and union with Christ.

In other words, Hybridism has the "dead" sinner "alive" before he has faith and thereby in union with Christ.

 
At Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:07:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

posttinebraelux said...

I'm not concerned who holds what position - I'm concerned about what the Bible says to the issue and making sure that whatever position I hold lines up with my understanding of the Bible.

This, of course, is a "given" in the case with everyone who is a Christian. Presumably, we all want to understand what the Bible teaches, don't we?

Whether some pedo-regenerationist holds the same position is irrelevant. I'm not even sure what a pedo-regenerationist is.

We have written much on this site about the views perpetrated by pedo-regenerationists, and you might profit from consulting the Archives.

In brief, the pedo-regenerationists are those who hold that children born to believers are "regenerated" as babies,-- or even before birth, as per the view of John Frame.

We have quoted from notable "Reformed" scholars, Dr. Shedd and Dr. Berkhof, both of whom advocated this view, a notion which necessarily involves the idea of "regeneration"
apart from means and before faith. To be consistent, they hold that adults are likewise "born again before faith."

Unfortunately, all too many of the professing "Calvinists" among some Baptists have been infected with the "pre-faith regeneration" theory of these pedo-regenerationist theologians as to adult regeneration.

 
At Friday, July 28, 2006 12:58:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

FOUNDERS' HYPOCRISY

Bob to Charles:

On Tom Ascol's "Founders" blog, Charles, they have been nitpicking Professor Brad Reynolds of Southeastern Seminary, in the context of what Ascol piously calls "Confessional Integrity."

Of all people to talk about "confessional integrity," the last one from whom we could expect it would probably be the Founders.

Not that they are not pious, sincere, and committed, but they are hypocritical.

With their committal to the Hybrid Calvinist doctrine on "regeneration" expounded by the likes of Dr. Shedd and Louis Berkhof (published by pedobaptist Iain Murray and The Banner of Truth Trust company), the Founders have a great gulf fixed between their Hybridism and the Southern Seminary's Abtract of Principles on Regeneration.

That Abstract has "regeneration" as including the "enlightening" of the subjects' "minds spiritually and savingly TO UNDERSTAND THE WORD OF GOD."

Contrariwise, the Shedd-Berkhof doctrine on "regeneration" promoted by the Founders exludes both the (1) use of the means of the Word and (2) the element of "savingly" understanding the Word of God from the act of regeneration. It has "regeneration" as being an act separate and apart from "means" and "savingly understanding the Word of God."

In other words, their heresy has the sinner "born again before faith."

The Abstract of Principles would have to be unreasonably tortured and terribly twisted so as to support such a heresy on regeneration as promoted by the Founders. Good examples of such distorting is illustrated by Sproul, White, Schreiner, Nettles, Bridges, and similar Hybrids.

Until the Founders come into compliance with the Abstract of Principles on Regeneration in contrast to what they are presenting and promoting, let them show their integrity (if they have any) by restraining themselves from the nitpicking of others about "confessional integrity."

 
At Friday, July 28, 2006 1:09:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

WHO?
Jeffro said...


And others, think the altar call saves people, so they have to give them.

You should not make charges you cannot support. I have my doubts that you can name a single church which affirms the idea that the "alter call saves people."

That may be how you choose to construe the use of the invitation or altar call, but that is not what is taught, and you should refrain from using such a false assertion.

 
At Friday, July 28, 2006 2:54:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

BRIDGES SOLICITING FOR JAMES?

Bob to Charles:

Did you notice, Charles, that Gene Bridges is trying to lure you and me to gratuitously help boost the James White's internet broadcast, the "Divining Line," by calling James?

Yet Gene does not offer any compensation for the time and trouble this would take -- not to mention the irritation of having to correct James.

I wonder how much it would be worth to James for either you or me to call his DL? Maybe Gene could confer with James and make us an offer?

The laborer is worthy of his hire, and since James stands to profit handsomely from the publicity of such a call, he should be willing to pay the laborers, right? He could probably record the call and sell it nationwide to his disciples.

Unless James made a very substantial "up front" offer, I would defintely want a contract indicating the percentage I would receive from the sales, wouldn't you, Charles?

 
At Friday, July 28, 2006 3:03:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob, Hello!

White's entire ministry has been made off the backs of others, either the cults, the "Arminians", or what have you. I guess he is unable to simply teach the Bible.

Maybe James is "hard up" in terms of donations and needs a boost.

Charles

 
At Saturday, July 29, 2006 12:20:00 PM, Blogger volfan007 said...

i think you will find that the five pointers like to sneak in thier theology. they dont like for people to know about thier five point, fatalistic theology until after they are "in" a church or a seminary. then, they want to convert everyone to thier extreme. most of the five pointers dont like to be called what they really are either....nearly-hyper calvinist. dr. nettles is one....no doubt about it. it's all the man can think about or talk about, unless he has changed. which doesnt look that way due to comments i am hearing about southern and who they invite to chapel. i will definitely advice young preachers that i know to not go to southern.

 
At Monday, July 31, 2006 7:26:00 PM, Blogger Jerry Grace said...

Brother Bob and Charles,

Regarding the Abstract of Principles

It is interesting to note an item presented for study at the current exective committee of the SBC. Introduced by Dr. Boyd Luter of Texas the resolution called for there to be no extensions to, or expansions of the BSF&M as the only statement of faith utilized the the Southern Baptist Convention. Any such statements of faith different from the SBC would have to be approved by vote of the entire convention in conference.

The underlying issue revolves around the new rules for missionaries at the IMB and as adopted by the NAMB which go beyond the BSF&M. Although I have no passion to champion the particular issue one way or the other, the issue of having only one BSF&M for every Southern Baptist entity, agency, commission or seminary is not only appropriate but essential. I strongly advocate the approval by the entire convention of any matter on a statement of faith used by any entity of the SBC. No one should have the right to impose their personal or trustee group beliefs on the rest of us. Congregationalism has served us mightily over the years in terms of polity.

Although not an intent of the original resolution, it would have broad application across the convention. The abstract of principles would have to be voted on by the entire convention since it is indeed a departure from the stated BSF&M. Those who make the ludicrous argument that uh uh it's grandfathered will find an unappreciative audience. Our convention desperately needs to find commonality within our seminaries.

We should have a say about the direction of Southern Seminary other than a mob of rotating trustees who seem either helpless or conspiratorial at the direction being taken. What's good for one seminary must be good for all. In fact what's good for the seminaries is good for the convention. I strongly support a vote on replacing our BSF&M with the Abstract of Principles as our statement of faith. Although I will not vote for it, having a referendum between the two is the only way to let the people speak. I will accept their will, whatever it is. Will you DR. Mohler?

 
At Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:06:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

HARANGUING HYBRID HUGHEY

Bob to Charles:

A gentleman by the name of "Sam Hughey," whose errors were duly noted awhile back in an email to my list, REPLY TO HYBRID CALVINIST SAM HUGHEY [05/09--2006], continues to spew and sputter. So much so that even Gene Bridges is aligning with him and reproducing Sam's "Samology."

I will not take note of everything Sam says, but I did find a few rather notable comments which reflect an apparent lack of thinking capacity to comprehend what is read -- an item which is not unusual for Hybrid Calvinists.

He even attributes to "Ross" some comments that you actually made, Charles, and one wonders if he perhaps has some type of unfortunate handicap. Or, is he one of that skeptical number who thinks that "Bob" and "Charles" are one-and-the-same? If so, that, too, would indicate some type of handicap, wouldn't it?

At any rate, among Hybrid Hughey's remarks, I was rather delighted to see him at least make the following admission:

>>
Hardshell Baptist doctrine includes the view that regeneration precedes faith,
>>
07.14.06  Post subject: Regeneration Before Faith (by Sam Hughey, http://reformedreader.org/
forum/viewtopic.php?
p=6412&sid=cb0e02393ee34806
bc5c9c6c6ace8172

This is what we have been saying all along, Charles, yet some dispute this fact. Hardshellism, Hybridism, modern "Reformed" sources, and at least some on the Faculty of Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville agree with the Hardshells on regeneration. These Hybrids are essentially teaching the very same view of "Regeneration" on which the entire Hardshell movement was built, and Sam herewith admits it to be the case.

Sam also erroneously says:

>>
Bob Ross claims Gene’s view of Regeneration preceding Faith fails to agree with Reformed Theology and is disproved merely on the grounds that one individual disagrees with him. Bob Ross stated, Gene's ignorance of Reformed theology is appalling and is refuted by none other than John Frame, professor of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary. Is the whole of Reformed Theology proven or disproved solely on the view of John Frame? Bob Ross believes this.
>>

If I am not mistaken, Charles, you are actually the writer whom he is quoting here, from your blog on Saturday, July 01, 2006

Nevertheless, do either you or I entertain the idea that "the whole of Reformed Theology" is based "solely on the view of John Frame"?

I do not recall making that assertion, and I certainly have no recollection of reading it from you. I think Sam's "handicap" is obvious when he makes such an allegation. Also, since Gene has reproduced Sam's stumblings, one might wonder what is afflicting Gene's mental apparatus?

Sam goes on to say:
>>
Both (Frame and Bridges) believe salvation occurs prior to the recipient having salvific faith. Both believe salvation occurs prior to belief.
>>

That is exactly what we have been exposing and refuting, isn't it Charles -- that Frame and Bridges deny that one necessarily has to have "saving faith" created by the Word and Spirit in the New Birth, or salvation?

Sam also says:
>>
Bob Ross boasts that he has had no takers for an open debate on B.H. Carroll’s view. Perhaps it is because Carroll and many other Reformed (Baptist) Theologians have already settled the issue? If anyone accepts Ross’s invitation to debate him, perhaps he can explain why Carroll would say faith precedes regeneration but also says it is the fruit of regeneration.
>>

Dr. Carroll has already "explained" the matter of "the fruit of regeneration." He does so in his An Interpreation of the English Bible, Volume 10, pages 287, 288:

Carroll explains in what sense "repentance and faith" are "fruits," as follows -- which is not accepted by either Sam or Gene Bridges:

>>
"When we say repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration we simply mean that in each case the Spirit grace above orginates and works the respective human exercise below.

The following scriptures prove that repentance is a grace as well as a human exercise: Acts 5:31; 11:18. That faith also is a grace, is seen from 1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 3:5; 2 Peter 1:1.

The Holy Spirit then is the agent in regeneration and the instrumental means of regeneration is the Word of God, or the preaching of Christ crucified, yet the power of the Spirit does not reside in the Word as inspired by Him, but the agency is positive and active in the use of the word."

Carroll closes this chapter by saying --

"REGENERATION CANNOT BE COMPLETE WITHOUT FAITH" (page 294).
>>

Sam, Gene Bridges, and the other Hybrid Calvinists fantasize that they have a "regeneration" which is "completed" before and without faith -- the same as the Hardshell Baptists.

Of course, the case with most of them whom I know is that they used to say they were "born again" under "Arminianism" in relation to professing faith during a public invitation, but they later learned "better" after they heard some "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinist explain that one is "born again before believing."

There is more to read from B. H. Carroll on the New Birth in some of my posts on the following Flyswatter thread:

Gene M. Bridges falls down on "regeneration before faith"
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/
2006/07/gene-m-bridges-falls-down-on.html

 
At Friday, August 04, 2006 4:42:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

"CROW EAT'N TIME" BY THE
QUIZZICAL QUARTET?


Bob to Charles:

Well, Charles, the Great Debate seems to be developing as even more "soap operish" than ever.

Tom Ascol has even been granted repentance so as to return as James White's debate partner.

There is now what appears to be some mutual "crow-eating" on the part of both teams of debaters -- the Caner Brothers and the White-Ascol duo. A mutual statement has been posted on websites which apparently is intended to "put to rest" the past antagonistic elements, and very piously commits to a renewed effort to make this debate more honorable and respectable than the polarized direction in which it seemed to headed.

So, what can we say, Charles? Congratulations, Good Luck, and Best Wishes? Has God done a sovereign "work of grace" in the four hearts which has resulted in their being effectual called to conformity to the image of Christ?

Is this change in attitude in accordance with Predestination and Irresistible Grace, or did it result from the Free Will of Man? Was it Monergistic or Synergistic? Will the debaters persevere in holiness thru the debate, and be preserved so as to endure to the end? Was it according to the "Ordo Salutis" for having a debate?

 
At Monday, August 07, 2006 8:04:00 AM, Blogger volfan007 said...

what always amazes me is the zeal that the five pointers have in promoting calvinism. they are obsessed with it. they can think of nothing else. i went to doc ascol's blog and they are just about giddy over this debate taking place...like it's going to make everyone become a five pointer if white and ascol can win it. boy, are they disillusioned. but, that's how they are...they are more concerned with winning christians to five pointism than they are with winning people to Jesus. all groups and people off the deep end tend to be this way. all extreme groups tend to be this way....do they not?

volfan007

 
At Monday, August 07, 2006 10:29:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Volfan007, Hello!

You wrote, they are more concerned with winning christians to five pointism than they are with winning people to Jesus.

That's the whole purpose of Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry).

Volfan007, I wish you would start a blog. You have some good things to say.

Charles

 
At Monday, August 07, 2006 10:35:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob, Hello!

You wrote, Charles, the Great Debate seems to be developing as even more "soap operish" than ever.

Strange, isn't it? I believe James White must relish the melodrama. After all, debating is practically his whole world.

Charles

 
At Monday, August 07, 2006 1:51:00 PM, Blogger volfan007 said...

debating is thier whole world, and they are good at it....as are the campbellites, or the church of christ that we have here in tn and the south. they are an arminian group that is very skilled in debate, and they love to argue...much like the five pointers.

it would be funny if it were not so sad.

volfan007

 
At Monday, August 07, 2006 3:55:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you not sure that it is the left of the right (the typical sbcer like yourself) that like the debate. That is all this site is about - being left of the right!

 
At Wednesday, August 09, 2006 11:12:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

ON GENE BRIDGES

Bob to Charles:

I think you are fortunate, Charles, to have a critic of The Flyswatter such as Gene Bridges, for he furnishes many significant opportunities for refuting the "Reformed" heresy of "born again before faith."

Like Scott Morgan awhile back, Gene's blunders serve to very appropriately "set up" many issues in contexts in which the truth can be presented in contrast to the "Reformed" error on
"regeneration."

If you see any of his blogstrosities circulating in cyberspace, please let me know. He makes so many blunders I would not want to miss taking note of any of them. He reminds me of many of the Campbellites I have debated who have frequently been their own worst enemy on the issues being debated.

 
At Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:38:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob, Hello!

You wrote, I think you are fortunate, Charles, to have a critic of The Flyswatter such as Gene Bridges, for he furnishes many significant opportunities for refuting the "Reformed" heresy of "born again before faith."

We're lucky to have him.

Brother Bob, in order to give some of your recent posts on Bridges a wider readership, I moved them to a new thread. Readers can find them here.

Thank you for your outstanding research.

Charles

 

Post a Comment

<< Home