Bend it Like Timmy Brister!
Bend it Like Brister!American sports commentators were all abuzz a few weeks ago when soccer superstar David Beckham announced he was moving from Europe to play soccer in Los Angeles. Beckham is known for his incredible free kicks in which the ball seems to “bend” past opposing goalkeepers into the goal, thus prompting the popular phrase and later movie title, Bend It Like Beckham.
Beckham’s amazing ability to “bend” what should be the straight path of a kicked soccer ball reminds me of a Reformed Calvinist blogger who is able to “bend” the truth in a similar fashion. I’m thinking of none other than Timmy Brister, the man whose own seminary called his blog, “juvenile.” Timmy is a prime example on how one can use a blog to bend facts and figures into whatever one wants the truth to be.
http://provocationsandpantings.blogspot.com/2005/10/jack-graham-comes-to-southern-seminary.html
Take Brister’s supposed “research” on the altar call. As a sycophant for Tom Ascol and James White, Brister’s “research” consisted mostly of the same Iain Murray sources which Brother Bob Ross has thoroughly debunked time and time again. Showing that he has a sense of humor, Brister calls his sources, “credible information.” Makes you wonder how “research” is taught and conducted at the SBTS, doesn’t it?
http://provocationsandpantings.blogspot.com/2005/09/
bibliography-decisional-regeneration.html
At another point Brister makes the statement, “Ironically, the decisionistic regeneration style .... has perpetuated much of this faulty understanding of conversion where if you pray a prayer, walk down an aisle, or do some other mechanical formula then you have unlocked the heavenly code, are converted, and assured of going to heaven regardless if there are any evidences of the Spirit's operations in the sinner.” http://provocationsandpantings.blogspot.com/2006/03/
dever-baptized-pagans-and-ministry-of.html
I challenge Timmy Brister to name one Southern Baptist pastor or evangelist who believes that a “mechanical formula” can “unlock the heavenly code” and save a sinner! Put up or shut up, Timmy! I made a similar challenge to Steve Camp months ago and I’m still waiting for an answer. Hello?
Another example of Brister’s “research” involves his “More About Billy Graham” article in which Brister quotes an alleged interview of Graham by Robert Schuller.
http://provocationsandpantings.blogspot.com/2006/08/
moore-about-billy-graham.html
Brister’s article alleges that over the years Billy Graham has made heretical statements. One would hope that if a student attending the BILLY GRAHAM SCHOOL OF MISSIONS AND EVANGELISM at Southern Seminary accused Billy Graham of heresy, then that student would provide meticulous, detailed research supporting his allegations. Not so with Timmy Brister!
Brister quotes an alleged interview with Graham by Robert Schuller and provides no source for the interview. None! Nada! Zip!
Amazing, isn’t it? A seminary student attending a school named after Billy Graham accuses Billy Graham of heresy and provides no source for an especially damming interview. Even more amazing, at one point Brister provides video commentary, saying, “[R.S. trips over his tongue for a moment, his face beaming].” But what is Brister’s source? Again, none, nada, zero.
I have two more questions for Timmy. What is your source for Robert Schuller’s alleged interview with Billy Graham? And, did you actually watch the interview?
Apparently when it comes to “bending” things, David Beckham has nothing over Timmy Brister. Keep that in mind the next time you read something by Timmy. Are you really getting the straight truth? Because no one can Bend It Like Brister.
Charles
[For more on Timmy Brister's sloppy research and attacks on Southern Baptists, see Timmy Brister Attends Billy Graham School Yet Attacks Billy Graham's Methods and Timmy Brister Attacks Altar Calls in Southern Baptist Churches]
posted by Charles @ 1:09 PM
43 Comments:
"Charles",
The interview was seen and has been talked about for several years.
It occurred on May 31, 1997. The video file used to be available on the Crystal Cathedral website, but has since been taken down.
Many people have seen and/or read the transcripts since then.
Are you really claiming this interview didn't take place??
I know you like to stick your head in the sand, but I think even for you this would require you to stick it deeper than normal.
BTW, did you read the article in 'Newsweek'...or is that a myth too?
BTW, I see you have a new obsession with Timmy Brister.
Your absurd comments and baseless accusations are amusing...but the rhetoric is a bit much. Though I suppose if you cut out the rhetoric you'd actually have to formulate a coherent thought or a meaningful argument...and I think we've all seen you are incapable of such things. (Come to think of it, have you ever made an argument based on Scripture. Hmm, don't think so.)
Well, thanks for keeping my day entertaining, at least.
BTW (pt2), are you ever going to have the guts to come out from behind your screenname and tell us who you are?
Doubtful.
"j.gray", Hello!
You wrote, Are you really claiming this interview didn't take place??
What is Timmy's source. Did he see it? That's what I want, "J."
Timmy has made accusations against a man whose name adorns the school he attends! He should provide a source that can be checked out, don't you think?
Is Timmy's research typical of Southern seminary students? Accusations of heresy with no documentation?
Your absurd comments and baseless accusations are amusing
There is nothing "baseless" about pointing out the severe lack of historical fact and analysis regarding Timmy's view of altar calls. Or yours, for that matter.
are you ever going to have the guts to come out from behind your screenname and tell us who you are?
Is that what it takes? Guts? If so, why not lead the way, "J.Gray" and also provide information on your fellow "group" bloggers, none of whom have identified themselves.
Then, hop over to Gene M. Bridges' blog and ask him to provide the source of some of his posters. Then head over to founders.org and ask Tom Ascol for the same thing. Gene and Tom both have either allowed comments or used sources by bloggers without names.
We also get many comments on this blog by various people named "Anonymous" who take a decidedly hybrid/hyper/neo/extreme Calvinist viewpoint. Why not encourage them to post with their real names, "J."?
So go for it, "J Gray." Get these guys to put up the goods and then I'll see what I can do.
I won't hold my breath. I suspect you're just another Southern Seminary student who is afraid of what is going to happen once the SBC finds out what is going on in Louisville.
Charles
BILLY GRAHAM
J. Gray said...
Are you really claiming this interview didn't take place??
This interview is not related to my comments about Timmy Brister's commendation of Iain Murray's booklet as "excellent."
Iain Murray wrote his booklet long before the reported interview. He wrote against Billy Graham's use of public invitations, citing the example of Martyn Lloyd-Jones' opposition when Graham was holding meetings in England.
Murray says that opposition to public invitations is based on the "main point" of the "order of salvation" (the pedobaptist view of the "ordo salutis"). This order says one is "born again before faith." Murray contrues this heresy as the primary basis for rejecting the use of invitations, and Timmy says that is "excellent."
Whatever Graham said in a later interview evidently was not of such gravity that Southern Seminary would bypass honoring him by using his name and continuing to do so.
Maybe Timmy can lead a crusade against using Graham's name and perhaps replacing it with Baby Baptizer Iain Murray's!
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, Maybe Timmy can lead a crusade against using Graham's name and perhaps replacing it with Baby Baptizer Iain Murray's!
Ha! Yes, that would be a more fitting name, for sure. Especially since they have Thomas R. Schreiner as one of their "top" professors and have had John Frame and Wayne Grudem as featured guests.
Charles
FOUNDERS' CREATOR APPROVED OF
ALTAR CALLS, BUT FOR THE "CONVERTED" ONLY
Bob to Charles:
Founders' creator Ernest Reisinger and Florida attorney D. Matthew Allen wrote a book called "Worship -- The Regulative Principle and the Biblical Practice of Accommodation" (Founders Press, 2001).
This book is an effort to define and apply the pedobaptist concocted "regulative principle," but the book's most significant purpose seems to be opposition to public invitations to lost sinners to accept Christ and respond during a public invitation.
The writers have adopted the Presbyterian/Campbellite hermeneutic of "command, example, and inference" pages 44, 45) in their opposition to the use of public invitations to the unsaved to accept Christ and come forward to publicly confess Him -- despite the fact this is probably the very format whereby most of the anti-invitationists themselves made their professions of faith. This is the same hermeneutic used by the Campbellites and some Presbyterians to oppose such things as mechanical instrumental music.
Near the very end of the book, it somewhat "blew my mind" to read what the two "Flounder" scribes have to say on pages 150, 151. On these pages, they propose that "walking down an aisle is NEITHER COMMANDED NOR FORBIDDEN," and they explain that what is of concern to them is the "reason why people are walking to the front."
They apparently believe that an altar call or public invitation is perfectly all right within itself, just so long as lost sinners are not invited to believe on Christ and come forward to confess that faith!
They will allow and approve of the public invitation as being A-OK when scrutinized by the
"regulative principle" hobby-horse if the "reason" for coming forward is deemed acceptable by these two
"Flounder" scribes.
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. To invite the converted to come forward does not cut across any principle of biblical theology discussed in this book" (page 151).
They do not, however, offer any "prooftexts" as "authority" for any one of these four reasons, nor for inviting the "converted to come forward" -- despite the fact they all use this type of argument against invitations to the unsaved!.
What these "Flounders" are apparently saying is that a lost sinner should not be invited to come forward for any reason whatsoever. You can invite the "converted," but not the unconverted!
I get the impression that they are saying that an invitation of any sort to the unsaved to come forward is a violation of the "regulative principle." Other than that, they do not object to the altar call for the other specified reasons -- despite the fact they offer no Scripture for any type of altar call, even to the "converted."
All of those individuals in numbers 1 to 4 (above) are presumably "saved" already, so it is OK with these two "Flounders" for the saved persons to be invited to come forward, despite the lack of any Scripture for this -- but you will notice that a lost sinner is not to be invited to come for any reason -- not even to come forward if the lost person wants instruction in regard to the question, "What must I do to be saved?"
One might get the impression that the primary purpose of the anti-invitationists in opposing an alter call is to prevent sinners from responding to the Gospel and confessing Christ by coming forward during an invitation. While they do allow -- as does Iain Murray in his anti-invitation booklet -- that one may be converted where an invitation is used, yet it is said that "some are converted in spite of it" (The Invitation System, page 24).
If the "Flounders" are intent upon preventing professions of faith, they seem to be doing a rather good job at it in their own churches -- so far as I have observed. The additions to their churches are apparently persons who have been converted in other circumstances than at "Flounders" churches.
Charles and Bob,
Timmy has been in serious need of an attitude adjustment. Way to go.
My time at Southern has been fruitful so please do not put all of us in the same boat! I'm not a Timmy B. or a John Frame.
You are right, Southern is a bastion of extreme Calvinism. A friend of mine sent out resumes recently, every church that contacted him asked him to explain about his Calvinism in detail. He's still looking for a job.
SBTS Student
guys, i love this blog! the founders would have a lock on the baptist internet if not for you.
bob, keep it coming! your research on the founders and altar calls have helped me in talking with my own pastor.
charles, what happened to j. gray? did you scare him off?
No, "J.Gray" didn't get scared off. What could possibly have scared me off?
BTW, that is actually my name...and what I go by. But thanks for asking.
You can continue to lob attacks if you want...but you just make yourself look foolish. You can hide behind a screenname all day long if you so desire.
I wish all people would stop posting under "anonymous" and would have the decency to share their name.
But if I was running a blog where all I did was blast people, I would hope that I could be a little more upfront and honest with people.
But we both know you don;t have the guts to say who you are...then you'd actually have to be held accountable for the venom you spew.
Bob,
I didn't mention altar calls in my post. I could care less about your hatred for Iain Murray or your disagreement over this issue. It means nothing to me either way. Do altar calls if you desire...or don't. I don't care.
But thanks for including me in your rant. :)
I only posted because I find it sad that you guys have such a loathing of Dr. Mohler and Southern Seminary. You guys misrepresent and make odd accusations.
Then you single out a seminary student (very classy, BTW) and go after him accusing him of lying about an interview that a simple google search could prove exists. (Try it, it does!)
Sad.
But such is the life of someone who nitpicks what tons of people say and do...but is too scared to actually stand behind his statements.
I have to say I am thankful that you guys only have a small voice on the internet and don't actually pastor....God help those men and women, if you did.
J. Gray
"J. Gray", Hello!
You wrote, BTW, that is actually my name...and what I go by.
Says you. BTW, you still did not identify your fellow bloggers, some of whom use screen names and do not identify themselves.
So what we have here is a blogger ("J Gray") who blogs with other bloggers that do not identify themselves, and use names like, Big Henk, Natedawg8199, ericyeldell, miket, and JP drock. Then "J. Gray" actually demands that someone else cough up their identify.
"J," if your logic wasn't so pathetic, I would have a good laugh over it. But don't worry, I'm used to hypocrisy when it comes to dealing with hyper/hybrid/neo/extreme Calvinists.
you guys have such a loathing of Dr. Mohler and Southern Seminary
I don't loathe Dr. Mohler or Southern. I just want it returned back to the Southern Baptist Convention. Especially since the SBC is paying the salaries and much of the tuition. SBC churches do not believe in the "born again before faith" heresy that is being promoted at Southern. It is only a matter of time before things get interesting.
Then you single out a seminary student (very classy, BTW) and go after him accusing him of lying about an interview that a simple google search could prove exists. (Try it, it does!)
Bait and switch, J. Bait and switch. The interview was only a small part of what was revealed about Brister.
Your google search proves nothing. Otherwise, you would have coughed up the source.
I'm not asking about YOUR sources, I'm asking about Brister's. He's the one making the allegations about Billy Graham. Don't you think it was worth a source by Timmy? Is that how they are teaching you boys at Southern?
As far as "singling out" Brister, he singled out himself when he attacked the altar call and Billy Graham. He did it publicly on a blog. I guess he doesn't have the stomach to respond to his sloppy research.
Speaking of "guts," this is the kind of guts Brother Bob and I are finding. The freak show hybrid Calvinists do a hit piece on the SBC or the altar call or just lie about something. We respond. Then they sulk off into the night with their tails tucked between their legs.
Charles
Scott, Hello!
Long time, brother!
Did you read Jerry Grace's latest? He writes about someone,
As to the guy over at the Founders Organization who is promoting a Calvinist takeover, he is, I discovered an interesting fact. He claims to be a Southern Baptist. He lists his church as being Southern Baptist in the Founders registry. But oddly no one in his particular state convention has any record of that church or this individual. I called. And oddly no one at the national convention has any record of this church and this individual either. I called. And following a principle of fairness, I sent him an email detailing this and suggesting there must be some mistake. There wasn’t. He has not responded to my emails.
Is that someone you, Scott? Why haven't you responded?
Charles
REFERENCES, PLEASE
J. Gray said...
You guys misrepresent and make odd accusations.
I am sorry, J. Gray, but how can I evaluate your criticisms unless you cite specific cases and attempt to demonstrate where I am in error?
You offer nothing which contradicts what I have written, but you seem to be content to simply utter palabber.
SINGLING OUT BRISTER?
Charles said:
As far as "singling out" Brister, he singled out himself . . . He did it publicly on a blog."
Isn't it amazing, Charles, that when one publicly raises his head up to promote error (like Brister did), and then someone whines when the fellow gets decapitated?
Brister -- much like Scott Morgan -- is a classic example of the "novice" mentioned by Paul.
Scott said...
Southern Student
You said " Every church asked your friend about Calvinism" Awesome ! It's called " Paying the Price For Truth".
Hello, Scott! I am still waiting on you to tell when you have setup the debate you proposed.
Can't you get some of your Hybrid brethren to come to your aid and help you in this debate?
Why don't you "Pay the Price For Truth" and get this debate off the ground? Think of how much influence you can have in promoting Hybrid Calvinism when you refute Bob Ross in a debate!
I don't know who any of you are on this blog as this is my first time here. However, I am left wondering if this is a Christian blog. Sincerely, I am. I'm thinking to myself as I read all of this...even if you disagree with someone (most especially if that someone is a brother in Christ and that disagreement revolves around theology), are you to be proud of your ranting and your crystal clear "attitude" towards someone who doesn't believe like you? It leaves me thinking that you must have a grudge for some reason or another. In either of these cases, do they serve to justify your attitude and the words that are coming out of your heart via your mouth? And before you say "Well they started it!" like my 10 year old son does, can you honestly say before God that your justified because someone else "started it"? I'm not saying you have said any of these things, I am just trying to think of what you could possibly say...and I can't think of one thing that you could say that would prompt me to respond to you by saying, "Oh well, very good then...no worries...let 'em have it...they deserve it." Why do you have no respect for people who disagree with you? I am left with a very uncomfortable feeling of questioning your salvation. Maybe you aren't a Christian and you have a blog because you just hate reformed theology? I don't know. You might do well to rethink your hearts motives and check yourself against scripture...again, assuming you are a Christian. From where I sit, I just can't tell.
By the way, I am an IMB Security 1 missionary. At the ILC my family attended a few years ago, out of the 130 people there, 48 were confirmed reformed in their theology (meaning I personally spoke to them that was prompted by various bible studies). This includes everyone in our Quad. That may give you nightmares, so I'm sorry. It also reveals that you may have more of an uphill fight then you think. In the field, I am also pleasantly surprised to continually find out that many missionaries give ALL the glory to God for their salvation and rest in Him to do the work in others hearts as well (just like you pray, right?) as we serve together in obediance to Him. As for you, if you are indeed a Christian, congrats on your "decision". I am sure you feel like you and God make a great team. May your reward be enourmous in Heaven for the effort you have made. As for me, I'll gently place my crown back down at His feet as I still wonder why He saved a wretch like me. (Last phrase courtesy of the song Amazing Grace - Written by John Newton - Reformed).
CHARLES WHY SHOULD ANYONE IDENTIFY THEMSELVES ON YOUR BLOG WHEN WE HAVE NO CLUE WHO YOU ARE - MR.CHARLES ANNONYMOUS! If you are so confident in your beliefs come out of the closet!!!!
At least those you talk about such as Timmy stand on their words. We can't say that about you!!!!
Anonymous, Hello!
You said, CHARLES WHY SHOULD ANYONE IDENTIFY THEMSELVES ON YOUR BLOG
They don't. As you have proven, this blog supports anonymous posting. Unlike Tom Ascol who doesn't allow anonymous posting or James White who doesn't allow any posting, the Flyswatter is open to any and all. Anonymous, have you considered that out of Tom Ascol, James White, and this blog, this is the only place you could have posted what you just said?
I was referring to "J Gray"'s blog. He was blasting me when he and his friends do the same thing. None of the guys (girls?) on his blog identifies theirselves.
It's hypocrisy at its worse but it's typical of what I have come to expect from the Flounders and their friends.
Charles
BOB TO CHARLES
Charles said...
Anonymous, Hello!. . .
Anonymous, have you considered that out of Tom Ascol, James White, and this blog, this is the only place you could have posted what you just said?
Not only so, Charles, but do you think that either Tom or James would allow either you or me to post our critiques of Hybrid Calvinism on either of their blogs? BOTH of them even "scratched off" of my email list, they are so "tired" of me!
I encourage you to keep your same format, Charles, and keep the "Anonymous" types guessing about your identity. I have no problem with anyone's remaining anonymous . . . unless they want to borrow some money! After all, we don't even know for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews, do we? The only thing that ultimately matters is what is written, not who wrote it.
"REFORMED"?
Anonymous said...
By the way, I am an IMB Security 1 missionary. At the ILC my family attended a few years ago, out of the 130 people there, 48 were confirmed reformed in their theology
By "reformed" do you mean you endorse the doctrine that infants born to believers inherit the blessing of "regeneration," and that they get "regenerated" before they are born or early in infancy "before, at, or after" their baptism -- before they ever believe in Jesus Christ -- as taught in the theological works of reformed theologians such as Shedd, Berkhof, Frame, Sproul, etc.?
Is the case that you yourself believe you were "regenerated" in infancy or even before you were born?
If so, then I understand why you are somewhat irritated by our comments on this blog.
"Charles",
Justify it all you want.
The people on my "blog" (if you can even call it that, at this point) don't try and make a pseudo-name for themselves by calling people out like you do.
It seem your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
You feel free to call people out by name and address their inability to live up to YOUR theological standard...but yet you lack the intestinal fortitude to actually even use your name.
You can attack my friends who use a screenname, but you better believe that if they were to ever start doing the type of smear posts that you do I would demand that they use their real names as well.
But, I think we all know why you don't use your real name....you're scared people will find out who you are and realize that your opinions are more worthless than they already appear to be.
Bob,
I really am not addressing you in any of these posts. All my criticisms have been about the slanderous posts of "Chuck".
I could care less about your hatred for Iain Murray and all things Founders. I have zero feelings over your hatred for Mohler and Southern Seminary. I have no desire to listen to you trash Tom Nettles because of your jealousy that he has a job teaching history at a seminary and you are just posting on some anonymous guys blog.
Your writing is inconsequential to me. I am not critiquing it or stating specific examples because I really don't care what you have to say. I have read plenty on both sides of the issue, so don't think I am trying to avoid the debate or even our side. To be honest I don;t know if I have a side because I see the validity of arguments on both sides. But I really could care less what YOU personally have to say.
Stop trying to pick a fight. I, at no point in this 'Bend It...' comment string ever addressed your writings.
I addressed Chucky's weird attack that said this interview didn't take place...and his odd conclusion that somehow the lack of documentation of a blog comment equates to lack of academic research being taught at Southern Seminary. I also watched him dodge the reference to the Newsweek article (nothing to say about that one, chuck?). I also saw him justify not using his real name as he tries to tear down the reputations of others (godly approach, chucky!).
Bob, I simply wasn't writing to you...only to Charles.
"J. Gray"'s hypocrisy knows no bounds!
"J Gray" said,
The people on my "blog" (if you can even call it that, at this point) don't try and make a pseudo-name for themselves
So you admit that your own blog is anonymous! Wonderful! Again, you make my points for me! Thanks, "J Gray" (assuming that is your real name).
You say I want to make a name for myself. Hardly. It's Timmy Brister who attends the Billy Graham School at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and yet has the gall to attack Southern Baptists and Billy Graham, the most beloved evangelist of the SBC. Timmy takes our tuition money and then spits in our face. Now there is a nobody who wants to make a name for himself.
if they were to ever start doing the type of smear posts that you do I would demand that they use their real names as well.
You smeared me on your blog and I still don't know who you or your friends are. Time to saddle up, "J." Boy, when it comes to the truth, you can almost Bend It Like Brister, can't you?
"J", I believe I was right about you from the start. You are probably a Southern student (or ex-student or wannabe). The fact that your arguments are self-refuting makes me question exactly what Southern is teaching you guys.
As for Timmy, he still has not (1) provided his source as to the alleged Billy Graham interview, (2) answered the question about whether he watched the interview since he provided video commentary, and (3) answered my challenge "to name one Southern Baptist pastor or evangelist who believes that a 'mechanical formula' can 'unlock the heavenly code' and save a sinner" as he has alleged.
Timmy is sloppy in his research and conclusions. He is typical of the type of "scholarship" that SBTS is putting out these days. Just look at Tom Nettles, for example.
More importantly, Timmy is a main promoter of the Reformed heresy that is being promoted by the SBTS and its student bloggers. That alone will make Southern Baptist churches shy away from him.
Charles
Brother Bob, Hello!
You asked Anonymous,
Is the case that you yourself believe you were "regenerated" in infancy or even before you were born?
Certainly that's what John Frame, Wayne Grudem, and R. C. Sproul believe, all of whom have been honored guests at Southern Seminary.
Southern Baptists churches reject the heresy that a person is "born again" before he puts his faith in Jesus Christ which is why our churches are going to be very upset once they find out what is being promoted at Southern Seminary.
Brother Bob, your article on Regeneration in Relation to Calvinist Theology would be a good primer for anyone who wants to know more about the errors of the modern Reformed movement.
Charles
TIMOTHY GEORGE'S REMARK
Charles said . . .
Brother Bob, your article on Regeneration in Relation to Calvinist Theology would be a good primer for anyone who wants to know more about the errors of the modern Reformed movement.
Timothy George, speaking at the recent conference at Union University in my hometown of Jackson, Tennessee, is reported to have said --
"What passes as Calvinism today makes Andrew Fuller turn over in his grave and makes John Gill go for a spin or two."
I have no idea, Charles, whose "Calvinism" that Brother George had in view, but his comment is certainly applicable to the non-creedal Hybrid Calvinism of the "Flounders," the "Reformed," and others of our time, as represented by the various names we have mentioned on the Flyswatter.
Thanks for mentioning my article which is designed to demonstrate that the non-creedal heresy of "born again before faith" is not the "Calvinism" of the creeds.
Brother Bob, Hello!
You'll remember that Timothy George also pointed out that John Calvin himself rejected the "regeneration before faith" heresy pushed by the Founders, Steve Camp, James White, John Frame, R. C. Sproul, and others of the modern day "Reformed" movement.
I believe that Calvinists such as Timothy George are beginning to open their eyes toward the heresy and excesses of groups like The Founders and their blogging sycophants.
Charles
"J. GRAY"
Charles said...
I believe that Calvinists such as Timothy George are beginning to open their eyes toward the heresy and excesses of groups like The Founders and their blogging sycophants.
Speaking of "sycophants," Charles, I "checked out" the "Practical Reformation" blog of "J. Gray," and he claims that The Flyswatter contends that "Spurgeon was not a Calvinist."
Somehow, Charles, I must have missed that. Can you enlighten me?
So far as I recall, this blog has thoroughly demonstrated that Spurgeon was not a HYBRID CALVINIST, and that's the extent of it.
In "J. Gray's" case, it may be that he is not a "sycophant," but simply a "syco"!
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, I "checked out" the "Practical Reformation" blog of "J. Gray," and he claims that The Flyswatter contends that "Spurgeon was not a Calvinist."
Yes, he is typical of the average Reformed blogger. As a researcher, he's on par with Timmmy Brister, don't you think?
Charles
Brother Bob, Hello!
You said, this blog has thoroughly demonstrated that Spurgeon was not a HYBRID CALVINIST, and that's the extent of it.
Correct. I would refer readers to the many Calvinist Flyswatter articles which address the differences between Charles Spurgeon, a Calvinist, and The Founders, a hybrid theological freak show.
Charles
JUST ANOTHER CONTRAST BETWEEN C. H. SPURGEON AND THE FOUNDERS?,
Statistics: Spurgeon vs. The Founders,
Spurgeon and Finney vs. The Founders,
Priesthood of the Believer: Spurgeon vs. The Founders
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, In "J. Gray's" case, it may be that he is not a "sycophant," but simply a "syco"!
He certainly has demonstrated his ability to Bend It Like Brister, hasn't he?
Charles
TIMOTHY GEORGE:"BANISH CALVINIST"
Bob to Charles:
An item that Timmy Brister did not report in his coverage of that Conference in Jackson, Tennessee is what Dr. Timothy George said about the word "Calvinist."
Link: http://www.uu.edu/audio
Dr. George advised, "Banish the word Calvinist from our midst."
(about 31.53 into the message).
That must have come as a real shocker for the likes of Timmy Brister, Tom Ascol, and the other Hybrids who attended the meeting!
I suppose Dr. George was merely using hyperbole in order to make the point against a top-heavy, distorted emphasis on Calvinism. I suggest, however, that if Dr. George really wants to strike a blow against such distortions, he could take a look at some of the things The Flyswatter has exposed over the past year, and utilize his gifts to refute the Hybrids and their heresies.
I attended
YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING Dr. Georges Statement....
Proof of what type of men you are!!!!
rh
Hello "Anonymous," "rh", or whoever you are!
Referring to Brother Bob Ross' post, you said, "YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING Dr. Georges Statement...."
How so?
Remember it was Timothy George who said that John Calvin rejected the "regeneration before faith" heresy.
As Brother Bob Ross and I have pointed out many times on this blog, this "regeneration before faith" doctrine is the lynchpin of the modern Reformed movement. They claim to be Calvinists when even John Calvin didn't believe that regeneration occured before faith in Christ!
Timmy B would do well to learn some things from Timothy G!
Charles
"MISREPRESENTING"?
Anonymous said...
I attended
YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING Dr. Georges Statement....
Proof of what type of men you are!!!!
rh
The Audio speaks for itself. As I understand the audio, Dr. George proposes that we "banish the word Calvinist." Timmy Brister understood him to say "banish the word Calvinism."
So where is the misrepresentation?
Dr. George's overall remarks about "Calvinism" seem to indicate that he has some degree of displeasure with modern
"Calvinism." He said some "Calvinism" today would make Andrew Fuller turn over in his grave and make John Gill do a spin or two.
CLARIFICATION
Bob to Charles:
I received the following in an email, which shows that "Anonymous" was in error when alleging that Timothy George was misrepresented on the Flyswatter:
>>
Mr. Ross:
To the anonymous poster on the Flyswatter who said he/she was at the Baptist Identity Conference and claims you misrepresented Dr. George's comment about "banish[ing] the word Calvinist from our midst," he may want to visit Timmy Brister's latest entry in which he, someone who was also at the Conference, summarized and affirms Dr. George indeed said what you said . . .:
Brister on Dr. Timothy George:
. . .
I don’t know if Dr. George is right to say that we needed to get rid of the word “Calvinist”
simply because it has become the “n” word in the SBC.
http://timmybrister.com/
You may want to cite this in the Flyswatter thread as an additional response to "anonymous" and ask which of the two of them who were at the same Conference are correct.
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2007/02/bend-it-like-timmy-brister.html
>>
As I said earlier, I did not see this mentioned in Brister's first report, so this later mentioning of Dr. George's remark by Brister demonstrates that we did not misrepresent Dr. George in our first post. The audio itself is the record, and it verifies my representation. I was not at the Conference, but I did listen to the audio.
Dr. George stated he didn't like the word because of what it has become to those like yourself who misrepresent it and that it does more harm than good to use such a label. John Piper has also states similar thought on the matter. But Dr. George stood strong on his own personal belief in Calvinism and that he would be nothing but and that includes all 5pts.
rh
WHAT TIMMY BRISTER
SAYS HE LEARNED
Bob to Charles:
Here are Timmy Brister's recent remarks about the Conference he attended at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee:
Dr. George’s message helped me see that I needed to be historically and confessionally grounded while seeking for unity in witness and love in everything I do.
Charles, don't you think Timmy could have (and perhaps should have) already learned that lesson from The Calvinist Flyswatter blog? Is that not what we have been insisting upon for nearly a year? [See the Archives: "Regeneration -- Calvinism," March 17, 2006]
In one of my earliest posts on this blog, I referred to the Confessions to emphasize the fact that modern Hybrid Calvinism on "born again before faith" is not the "Calvinism" of the Creeds and Confessions, and historically it is not the "Calvinism" of John Calvin, John Gill, C. H. Spurgeon, B. H. Carroll, John L. Dagg, and numerous others whom we have quoted. And we have continued to press this point -- the modern Reformed Calvinism is Hybrid Calvinism, not Confessional Calvinism.
"Historically" -- the Flyswatter has demonstrated that the Hybrid "ordo salutis" shibboleth of "born again before faith" was as "leaven hid in the meal" by the Reformed "baby regenerationists" of the post-1600s, based on their false doctrine that children born to believers inherit "regeneration" and are "born again" either before birth, or shortly after birth. It was handed down to the Reformed from the likes of Shedd, the Hodges, and Berkhof.
"Confessionally" -- the Flyswatter has demonstrated that there is not a single orthodox Confession of Faith which teaches the modern Reformed "born again before faith" heresy, advocated by the likes of Iain Murray, Reisinger, Sproul, Frame, Nettles, James White, and numerous Internet upstarts, novices, and palabberists.
We wait to see if Timmy Brister has indeed learned anything which will correct the error of his way, or if he will continue to "Sig Heil" the teachers and teachings of the Hybrid Calvinist Camp.
MURRAY's CONCESSION ON SPURGEON'S VIEW OF THE NEW BIRTH AND FAITH
Bob to Charles:
I recently received an email from a gentleman on my email list, and he points out some very interesting material from a recent [2005] Iain Murray Banner of Truth book.
Murray seems to have adjusted his analysis of Spurgeon on "regeneration," and now apparently concedes that Spurgeon taught that the new birth and faith occur simultaneously -- just as we have demonstrated about Spurgeon on The Flyswatter.
Here are excerpts from this brother's email about Murray, and his current interpretation of Spurgeon is EXACTLY what we have said all along:
>>
I am also enclosing as an attachment further comments by Iain Murray in The Old Evangelicalism, quotations remarking on Spurgeon. . . .
Murray notes Spurgeon saying the new life necessarily contains repentance and faith (p. 59), that these are "simultaneous" (p. 63) and that faith occurs "at the same time" as the new life (p. 65), . . .
"He [Spurgeon] was often content to say that faith ‘occurs at the same time as the new birth’".
>>
While Murray still erroneously attempts to make Spurgeon an anti-invitationist, he failed to take note of an item to which I have referred in some materials, to wit, that Spurgeon certainly did invite the unsaved to come forward and be dealt with after-service, or in the "inquiry room."
Murray, to my knowledge, has never taken notice of the following example which reveals Spurgeon's practice -- an item from the March 1865 issue of Spurgeon's The Sword and the Trowel, page 128, which specifically relates to an "invitation" to the "unsaved" at the close of a service on the evening of February 6, 1865:
>>
Now came the direct reference to the UNSAVED. This was introduced by a most earnest and awakening address by Mr. Spurgeon, and was responded to in prayer by Mr. Stott and Mr. Varley. A hymn followed, commencing thus,
"Once a sinner near despair."
Mr. Teal and Mr. Burton then prayed, and Mr. Spurgeon closed with prayer.
INQUIRERS were then encouraged to retire to the lecture hall, where ministers and elders would be glad to converse with them; and many responded to the INVITATION.
>>
Mr. Murray's footnote relates to another occasion, which is also reported on page 70 of the same issue of Spurgeon's magazine. Murray says:
>>
On the basis of one statement, it is alleged that Spurgeon did encourage the altar call, but the claim clearly rests on a misinterpretation of the words. It was reported (Sword and the Trowel, 1865, p. 70): 'Spurgeon earnestly exhorted those who had accepted Christ as their Saviour to come forward amongst his people.' This refers not to walking the aisles but to those who were already believers and not yet committed to churches.
>>
It appears from these two instances reported in this volume of S&T that Spurgeon "invited" BOTH believers and unbelievers to come forward -- (1) those who "had accepted Christ" were exhorted to come forward to confess their faith, and (2) the "unsaved" were invited to go into the lecture hall [i.e. inquiry room] to converse with workers in regard to coming to faith in Christ for salvation.
This practice of Spurgeon's evidently has all of the same basic constituent elements of the normal Baptist invitation.
Again, we must always remember that Mr. Murray is a pedobaptist and is identified denominationally with the theory that children born to believers inherit the blessing of regeneration and are "born again" in early infancy. This idea would naturally tend to predispose Murray to repudiate public invitations. If you have a congregation of people who were "born again" in infancy, what use is there in inviting any one to come forward to be counseled about being saved?
Hang on to these references, Charles. Any time a Hybrid Calvinist like Scott Morgan or Gene Bridges attempts to make a Hybrid out of Spurgeon, we can refer to the fact that even Hybrid Calvinist, Iain Murray -- who is the virtual theological father of the "Flounders" and their anti-invitationism -- concedes that Spurgeon held that the new birth and faith are SIMULTANEOUS.
ANOTHER TUNE?
Anonymous said...
Dr. George stated he didn't like the word because. . .
I simply quoted what Dr. George said, and you accused me of misrepresenting him. Now you seem to be strumming another tune, evading your irresponsible charge.
So far as the audio reveals, Dr. George does not define the "Calvinism" he holds. I get the impression, however, that he is disturbed more by the "Calvinists" who would "make Andrew Fuller roll over in his grave," and "John Gill to take a turn to two."
I don't think he had in view Creedal Calvinists and Calvinism, but rather the stuff you see on the Internet by the likes of Brister, White, Bridges, and their clan, wherein such "Calvinism" is the "alpha and omega."
TOM ASCOL'S WHINE
Bob to Charles:
Have you, Charles, read the whine which Tom Ascol has on his blog today -- continuing his critical campaign about the non-attendance in SBC churches?
This past year, Ascol wasted a great deal of time and energy in his dalliance with James White in regard to the proposed "debate" with the Caner brothers which never came to pass. If Tom is so anxious to see SBC churches cleanse their rolls of the alleged "unregenerates," he could have spent that wasted time and energy helping the SBC churches in his area to try to locate and call to account the non-attending members. Don't you reckon Tom would thereby have spent his time much more profitably?
Instead of piously firing shotgun blasts at unnamed SBC churches and pastors, why doesn't Ascol knock on some SBC church doors and say, "You have a lot of unregenerates on your church roll. I am here to volunteer my services to help you discern the unregenerates and get them off the church roll."
And if Tom really wants to help cleanse professing Christian churches of their "unregenerates," he could expand his campaign to include his beloved brethren of "Reformed" category, namely, the baby regenerationist churches where the majority of the members have been led to believe that they were "born again" when they were babies. Why doesn't Tom include the "Reformed" churches in his vision for cleansing the rolls of the unregenerate? Are SBC churches the only churches about which he is concerned?
Tom is not the only SBCer that desires the same. At the BIC Paige Patterson (probably one of your heros - scary thought) said the same thing. Others agreed so unless he is a liar and just speaking double talk. We have so many thinking all is well on our rolls and reality is they aren't ok and something needs to be done!
NEEDS?
Anonymous said...
We have so many thinking all is well on our rolls and reality is they aren't ok and something needs to be done!
I have suggested that Tom (and others with the "burden") could start in their own area, volunteering to seek to locate the "unregenerate" and help remedy the situation, weeding them out.
In the meantime, their names simply being on the church roll does not really hinder the active membership from doing the work of the Lord, does it? On the other hand, think of what a spiritual hindrance they would be if they were really very "active" members, with their unregenerate minds naturally being inclined to be slack in regard to the really spiritual things the church wanted to do? Wouldn't that be "the greater of two evils"?
The Pedobaptists in early America required every one to attend church or be penalized. Just look what that did for the Pedos!
Brothers, this spiteful bickering is not good, lets have a real discussion.
This is my first and last time to visit this blog. This is really sad. And you call yourselves Christians. A Christian is to be Christ-like - exhibiting the fruits of the Holy Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Anonymous, Hello!
You wrote, A Christian is to be Christ-like - exhibiting the fruits of the Holy Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control
Clearly you have not visited Timmy Brister's blog. A mere novice, he has taken it upon himself to trash Christians such as Billy Graham and other Baptist leaders. Why don't you visit his blog and post your same comments? Let me know how it goes, hum?
Charles
Post a Comment
<< Home