Timmy Brister Attacks Altar Calls in Southern Baptist Churches
Timmy Brister is a student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who is typical of the type of theological training being conducted there. As Brother Bob Ross demonstrates in his following comment, Brister is severely lacking in his knowledge regarding altar calls.
In my opinion, by attacking altar calls Brister also attacks Southern Baptist churches everywhere. Probably 99% of all Southern Baptist churches give the time-honored altar call at the end of their Sunday services.
If Brister does not like being a Southern Baptist why does he attend a Southern Baptist church and school? Why not instead attend a non-Southern Baptist church such as one of the hyper/hybrid/neo/extreme Calvinist "Sovereign Grace" Baptist churches?
Funny, isn't it? Brister does not mind attending a Southern Baptist seminary where much of his tuition is paid by the very churches who give the altar call that he despises. Or maybe it's not funny. Just hypocritical.
Timmy Brister: Color him, well, you know.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SBTS STUDENT PUSHES "SACRAMENT"CHARGE TO DISCREDIT INVITATIONS
Bob to Charles:
I noticed on another blog that Timmy Brister of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary seems to be promoting the "Altar Call is a Sacrament" palabber as a means to discredit the Baptist practice of using the public invitation.
Timmy does this by means of praising the anti-altar call comments in a book by a Reformed "baby regenerationist" (Joel A. Carpenter) who is associated with Calvin College of the Christian Reformed Church -- advocates of the Hybrid Calvinism of Louis Berkhof. Timmy also describes "baby regenerationist" Iain Murray's booklet on The Invitation System as "excellent."
I have a reply to Murray's booklet at this link: http://writingsofbobross.tripod.com/0055.htm
Also, I have comments on Murray at our website:
A Reply Regarding IAIN MURRAY'S Anti-Public Invitation Booklet: The Invitation System.
http://www.pilgrimpublications.com/invite1.htm
I mention this item by Timmy because he presumably is the "type" of "Calvinist" being fashioned by Hybrid Calvinist professors at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Students are obviously being influenced in their thinking by the Hybrid Calvinist "baby regenerationist" heresy on "born again before faith," which is one of the "root" ideas which account for opposition to public invitations as practiced by Baptists.
posted by Charles @ 9:44 AM
9 Comments:
I am wondering how many alter calls have brought about false professions by the tradition bound sbc pastor and how accountable for that he will been? Where are alter calls in scripture anyway? hum personally to rethink public profession and church members regarding baptism may be a smart think to do. So many alter calls and baptisms within sbc have proven to be false and in so doing blashemous.
1. I am a Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanter). I believe in infant baptism, but not baptismal regeneration or presumptive regeneration. Although I agree with much of Berkhof, and heartily recommend him to others, I disagree with his advocacy of presumptive regeneration, and note that he himself admitted presumptive regeneration to have been formally adopted by their churches no earlier than the Synod of Utrecht (1905).
2. The historic objection to altar calls is not because of some tie-in with Arminianism, but because they are not found in Scripture (from whence alone we are to derive our faith and practice). The altar call is a religiously significant part or ceremony of a worship service without any Scriptural appointment or institution. It is for this reason that the Reformed churches (and Reformed Baptists) refuse to give altar calls.
3. The Christian Reformed Church is nowhere near where it was when Berkhof was still alive -- they have been kicked out of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) for their allowing of women to serve as pastors and elders.
4. Bob Ross simply strings together several independent ideas, and in no way shows that any of them are logically related. Without proof, he claims it is "obvious" that the doctrine of presumptive regeneration (what he politely refers to as "the Hybrid Calvinist 'baby regenerationist' heresy") is influencing Baptists in adopting the doctrine that regeneration precedes faith; which he also claims, without any semblace of proof, is the main ground for opposition to altar calls.
5. It is necessary for the Holy Ghost to regenerate a person's heart, in order for them to respond to God in Christ by faith and repentance. Explain why this is unscriptural and/or un-Calvinistic.
6. You seem to preoccupy yourself with criticizing the Founders Ministries in the Southern Baptist Convention. What, no criticism of other Calvinists, like those in the Reformed or Presbyterian denominations? No critiques of Puritanical Sabbatarianism or psalmody? And is there anything original you can contribute to any of these discussions, instead constantly deferring to Mr. Ross?
--Sean McDonald
MURRAY'S DOCTRINE AT THE ROOT
OF ANTI-INVITATIONISM
Bob to Charles:
One of the subscribers on my email list has sent me an excerpt from Iain Murray which reveals Murray's Hybrid Calvinism on the new birth -- which is at the root of his repudiation of public invitations. I am inclined to think that behind most, if not all, of the anti-invitationism is the pedobaptist "Reformed" heresy about regeneration.
But before quoting from Murray's material, Charles, I remind you of the fact that Murray says in his booklet against invitations that the "main point" on this matter is what he calls "the order of salvation" -- the so-called "ordo salutis," which was concocted several years ago by the "born again before faith" "baby regenerationists." [The Invitation System, pages 18, 19].
I have observed that the Hybrid Calvinists of my acquaintance who accept the "ordo salutis" of the "baby regenerationist" Reformed writers -- such as Berkhof, Sproul, Murray, Frame, and those of that camp -- invariably repudiate the use of public invitations as a means to make a public confession of Christ. This seems to be at the root of anti-invitation thinking.
In the material by Murray sent to me, he says the following, taken from
pages 18-21 of Murray's The Old Evangelicalism (Banner of Truth, 2005) in a section subtitled "Regeneration and Conviction" (18-24 of Chapter 1, "Preaching and Awakening: Facing the Main Problem in Evangelism")].
>>
The new birth has to precede the faith as its cause . . . Thus Scripture represents regeneration as the immediate act of God; it is the giving of a new life, a being made alive from the dead, a new birth. Truth has no such creative power.
>>
This is the same theory which has been demonstrated to characterize the writings of "baby regenerationists"W. G. T. Shedd and Louis Berkhof in some of our earlier posts. It makes an arbitrary, artificial, and pernicious separation of the Holy Spirit from the Word of God in relation to regeneration so that the "truth has no creative power" (see John 6:63, Hebrews 4:12, Isaiah 55:11, Matt. 5:5-13 for passages which militate against this denial of the creative power of the Word).
Since the "baby regenerationists" teach that their babies are regenerated in early infancy apart from the Word of God and faith in Christ, they resort to this false dichotomy as the basis for their theory of "born again before faith" in the case of both infants and adults.
This theory is used by Murray as the "main point" against public invitations. Since the "elect" children supposedly get "regenerated" in infancy, there is therefore no reason to invite those who were "regenerated" in their infancy to accept Christ and confess Him. In fact, it might be a rather disturbing matter for an invitation to be given at a pedobaptist church since someone who was supposedly regenerated in infancy might become convicted of their lost estate and respond to the invitation! Such a case would imply that the idea of infant regeneration is in reality a myth.
"FALSE PROFESSIONS"?
Anonymous said...
I am wondering how many alter calls have brought about false professions . . .So many alter calls and baptisms within sbc have proven to be false and in so doing blashemous
None of us should presume more than we can actually know, and we are not capable of knowing the hearts of even professors of our personal acquaintence, much less professors in the entire SBC.
Also, we need not condemn something because of either false professors or other professors who do not measure up to certain "standards." Consider the case of Judas in the early church, for example.
As for altar calls "in scripture," if we must go down that trail of having to have a specific verse of scripture for every single thing we do, then we can just about undo everything from church buildings to organized Baptist associations and conventions. Are we willing to go that far?
I find it rather peculiar that some professed Calvinists seem to be so concerned about preventing "false professions" by the "non-elect" even more so than they give indications that they are concerned about securing true professions from the "elect."
The Parable of the Sower indicates that there will be some false professions even in the best of circumstances.
"NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE"
Sean McDonald said...
The historic objection to altar calls is not because of some tie-in with Arminianism, but because they are not found in Scripture (from whence alone we are to derive our faith and practice).
You are influenced, it appears, by definitions and expositions of the so-called "Regulative Principle" which are "not found Scripture."
If you are going to go by Scripture, then you will have to junk the "Regulative Principle" as usually expounded, for this pedobaptist device is not presented in Scripture, and it involves a mass of varying, contradictory human interpretations and applications.
One group of "Reformed Baptists," for example, have a small council of men which has "authority" to render such judgments. And the Presyterians continue to splinter, despite their "hobbyhorse."
Sean:
It is necessary for the Holy Ghost to regenerate a person's heart, in order for them to respond to God in Christ by faith and repentance. Explain why this is unscriptural and/or un-Calvinistic.
We have always affirmed the necessary work of the Holy Spirit, and have contended for the Creedal or Confessional view that He uses means to create repentance and faith, and this constitutes
"regeneration" or the new birth.
What we have opposed is the Hybrid Calvinist non-creedal notion that the "elect" are "born again before faith" is produced in effectual calling by the Word and Spirit.
What, no criticism of other Calvinists, like those in the Reformed or Presbyterian denominations?
If you will consult the Flyswatter Archives, you will find our criticisms of Hybrid Calvinism among the Reformed or Presbyterians.
And is there anything original you can contribute to any of these discussions, instead constantly deferring to Mr. Ross?
Again, if you will consult the Archives, you will find that Charles has consistently posted significant articles without "deferring to Mr. Ross."
Sean McDonald, Hello!
You said altar calls, are not found in Scripture (from whence alone we are to derive our faith and practice).
Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. Exodus 32:26
seem to preoccupy yourself with criticizing the Founders Ministries in the Southern Baptist Convention
Founders Ministry (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry) claims to be Southern Baptist and openly want to change churches in the SBC to a hybrid/hyper/neo/extreme Calvinist "no altar call" position. In my opinion, they are the number one cause of church splits in SBC churches. They have more influence among Southern Baptists that all the other groups you mentioned. So yes, we have focused on warning Southern Baptists about them.
is there anything original you can contribute to any of these discussions, instead constantly deferring to Mr. Ross?
Other than refer you to the archives I'm not sure I can help you here. I "defer" to Brother Bob because of his experience and knowledge in these matters. He was knowledgeable of the "born again before faith" heresy before most of its modern day advocates were born.
Go back and read some of his writings. He has information about the Founders, Hardshellism, etc. that is not found anywhere else in the blogosphere. You certainly won't find it at Founders.org. Brother Bob has exposed them for what they are, a hybrid Baptist-Presbyterian freak show that claims to want to take the SBC back to its roots when it fact they want to impose hybrid Calvinism on our churches.
Charles
REMARKS BY CHARLES, plus QUOTES FROM GEORGIA BAPTIST HISTORY by Jesse Mercer.
Charles said...
Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. Exodus 32:26
I affirm that oral confession of Christ, publicly before men, is revealed in Scripture, but there no one-and-only
"authorized" format or method for accommodating public confessions.
Any and all methods provided for public oral confessions are "scriptural" because public confessions are scriptural.
While I fully agree with the spirit and intent of your reference to Moses, Charles, let me say that there is absolutely no necessity for you, me, or anyone else to produce Scripture to justify the use of public invitations any more than there is such a necessity for scores of other things we do. Even the Baby Baptizers (who oppose invitations) acknowledge there is no Scriptural example of the administration of Baby Baptism -- or for sprinkling/pouring.
And among Baptists, what about choirs, musical instruments, business meetings, buying property, church buildings, Baptisteries, Fellowship Halls, Sunday Schools, Mission Boards, Conventions, Associations, Bible Conferences, Seminaries, etc. etc.? Where are these "in Scripture"? Yet somehow they are usually "sanctioned" by the Reformed "Rabbis" who are Masters in expounding the pedobaptist device called "The Regulative Principle."
We simply do not have to have a "prooftext" to specifically authorize every single thing we do. Confessing Christ before men is revealed in Scripture, but there is no exclusive or
"authorized" format for its accommodation. Any method we provide for public oral confessions is "scriptural" because such confessions are scriptural.
CHARLES:
Founders . . . are the number one cause of church splits in SBC churches.
Causing church splits has always been an attribute of a PROSELYTIZING "reforming" sect or movement. They do not make converts to Christ of the unsaved, but they make proselytes to a so-called "reformation" cause. It was the same with the Campbellites, Mormons, and Hardshells in the 1800s. All of them were parasites and leeches drawing proselytes from Baptists when they got started.
CHARLES:
I "defer" to Brother Bob because of his experience and knowledge in these matters. He was knowledgeable of the "born again before faith" heresy before most of its modern day advocates were born.
This is certainly true, for I have been opposing this heresy since the 1950s. Years ago I wrote a booklet on "The Killing Effects of Calvinism" in which I refuted the "pre-faith regeneration" heresy. Also, since the 1960s, I have had a booklet in print, "Strong vs. Berkhof," in which I present the contrast between Baptists and the "Reformed" view advocated by Berkhof and Hybrid Calvinists. I have also written against Iain Murray's doctrine since the late 1960s.
The "Flounders" are the offspring of Murray's teaching which was swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by the late Ernest Reisinger, the primary creator and leader of the "Flounders."
CHARLES:
Brother Bob has exposed them for what they are, a hybrid Baptist-Presbyterian freak show that claims to want to take the SBC back to its roots when in fact they want to impose hybrid Calvinism on our churches.
The "Flounders" and similar modern "Reformed Baptists" might appropriately be labeled "Bapbyterians" -- a Hybrid theological freak.
Do you recall, Charles, that CD-ROM which "Flounderer" Scott Morgan was extolling about awhile back? Well, I was taking a closer look at it recently, and found the following Baptist position which refutes the heresy of the Hybrids. This is from the "History of the Georgia Baptist Association" compiled by Jesse Mercer. Notice that Mercer refers to the Gospel as being ''INSTRUMENTAL IN PRODUCING REGENERATION AND THE EXCERCISE OF FAITH" and as the "INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE OF OUR REGENERATION." This contrasts with the Hybrid doctrine of Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, Murray, etc. which teaches that the Gospel (or the Word) is NOT the "instrumental cause" in regeneration.
HISTORY OF GEORGIA BAPTISTS by Jesse Mercer:
>>
Look at these texts: “In Christ Jesus. I have begotten you through the Gospel.” “Thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” “Faith cometh by hearing.”
Now, if the means used by Paul and others were instrumental in producing regeneration and the exercise of faith; so may we expect that our endeavors will result in the same happy effects. . . .
When God proposed to take out a people for his name from among the Gentiles, the first step he took, was to commission the Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. To this Paul most solemnly directs our attention, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, as the grand instrument of human salvation, when in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased him, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe. So intimate by divine appointment, is the connection between the salvation of man, and the ministry of the word, that the method of salvation under the Gospel derives from the latter its distinguishing appellation; being denominated the hearing of faith. Jude in like manner, asserts it to be the instrumental cause of our regeneration, “of his own will begat he us by the word of truth.” And to the same purpose, Peter reminds the christians whom he was addressing, that “they were born not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word,” which word he adds, is “by the Gospel preached unto you.”. . .
Establish in your minds the highest reverence and esteem of the Gospel. Recollect the miracles wrought to confirm it; the sanction, the awful sanction, by which a due reception of it is enforced; and the infinite value of that Blood by which its blessings were ratified and procured. Recollect, that on its acceptance or reception, on the effects which it produces on the heart and life, depends our state for eternity. Since there is no other means devised for our recovery, no other name given under heaven by which we can be saved, besides that which it exhibits, it is not merely the incorruptible seed of regeneration, it is also the mould into which our souls must be cast, in order to, our bearing the image of Christ, who is the first-born among many brethren.
>>
In the light of such statements quoted from Georgia Baptists by Jesse Mercer, one wonders why Hybrid Calvinist Scott Morgan was so enthused about this CD-ROM. Not only does the Georgia Confession conflict with Scott's views, but so do the above statements.
Sean,
Thank you. We would agree more than not for I am a Reformed Baptist.
I don't presume. Scripture teaches how to know the difference between true believer and false professor. As one set apart to lead in a church one should take seriously the matter of the soul that is coming to them. Judas isn't a good example.
Bob, You are constantly attacking the stands of the Calvinist about matters of standing on scripture for the why and why nots of Christian practice and now you are telling me it doesn't matter in relation to the alter call...please...
Your knowledge or lack there of is showing in regards to your statements about Calvinist.
REFERENCE, "PLEASE"
Anonymous said...
Bob, You are constantly attacking the stands of the Calvinist about matters of standing on scripture for the why and why nots of Christian practice and now you are telling me it doesn't matter in relation to the alter call...please...
You allege that I am "constantly attacking," but you do not cite any instances.
The fact is, I have RESPONDED to certain attacks by Hybrid Calvinists upon orthodox
Baptist faith and practice. If I have done otherwise, I welcome your giving me the reference to such.
The current comments I have made are in response to a recent attack by Timmy Brister regarding the Baptist use of public invitations to accommodate confessions of faith in Christ.
Are you trying to create a "rabbit trail" to evade my refutation of Timmy?
Post a Comment
<< Home