Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Timmy Brister Attends Billy Graham School Yet Attacks Billy Graham's Methods

Timmy Brister finds Iain Murray's anti-invitation (and by extension, anti-Southern Baptist) book "excellent." Bob Ross looks at the ramifications of Timmy's opinion.

Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SOUTHERN SEMINARY STUDENT SIDES WITH PEDOBAPTIST MURRAY

Bob to Charles:

On his blog, Timmy Brister endorses Iain Murray's phantasmagoria against "The Invitation System," calling Murray's booklet "excellent."

Murray's booklet is not only anti-public invitation, but it is anti-Billy Graham.

Brister is a student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary which honors Graham in using his name on the "Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Church Growth."

SBTS obviously honors and endorses Billy Graham, but Brister approves of Murray's booklet which repudiates and opposes Billy Graham's evangelism.

Murray's booklet also promotes the error that "baptism" is the initial means of confessing Christ, which is contrary to the Baptist practice of oral confession of Christ before baptism.

Murray holds to the Westminster Confession which teaches that baptism is commanded (WIC 28:1), that it is the scripturally warranted duty of believing parents to have their children baptized in infancy (WIC 28:4), and that it is "a great sin . . . to neglect this ordinance" ( WIC 28:5).

It is primarily on the basis of this error about infants that Murray bases his opposition to public invitations. He holds to the "Reformed" heresy that the "elect" children born to believing parents inherit the promise of regeneration, are born again in infancy, and therefore should be presented by the parents to be baptized and added to the church.

Since these "elect" children were supposedly regenerated in infancy, to extend an invitation to them to believe on Christ and confess Him publicly would be superfluous.

Since Brister is a Southern Seminary student, ostensibly studying for the Baptist ministry, it seems rather paradoxical (at best) that he regards as "excellent" the pedobaptist Murray's booklet which repudiates both Billy Graham's evangelism and the Baptist evangelistic practice of public invitations as a means of confessing Christ.

Do you suppose, Charles, that President Al Mohler and his Faculty share Timmy Brister's approval of Murray's anti-Billy Graham and anti-public invitation booklet?

3 Comments:

At Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:03:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob and Charles,

Is the issue ultimately about Scripture and what we are to do according to Scripture. Oh, but in my last post Bob stated that we don't need to have to take what we do in the church back to Scripture....

So now because someone is in a school who has given a human name to a program/school and doesn't adhere to this humans way of doing something then he is somewhat wrong. I see that your focus is on the ways of man and not the Scripture. Those who are against the lifting of a man, namely Billy Graham, in Nashville for the putting up of a statue may have something. Billy Graham is not the answer of God to the Church on how we do Church, Scripture is, so let us not judge by another mans way but by the Scripture.

 
At Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:01:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

USING SCRIPTURE
Anonymous said...


Is the issue ultimately about Scripture and what we are to do according to Scripture. Oh, but in my last post Bob stated that we don't need to have to take what we do in the church back to Scripture.... so let us not judge by another mans way but by the Scripture.

Every "hobby-rider" will refer to Scripture texts which allegedly "prove" he is right, and he will also refer to the lack of texts for whatever the "hobby-rider" wishes to reject.

For example, I once visited a Witness Lee "Local Church" in Houston where no offering plate was used. I was told there was a "lack of Scripture" to support its use. Instead, they used an offering box at the back of church . . . despite the "lack of Scripture" for the offering box.

Yet if a "hobby-rider" is called upon to produce texts for certain of his own ideas and practices, he finds he has to resort to other ways to justify the matter.

If you reject public invitations as a format for confessing Christ since no text specifically is found for public invitations, then what method is specifically authorized in Scripture for public confessions of Christ?

You do believe in a public confession of Christ previous to being baptized and being received into the church, don't you?

If Philip could hear the Eunuch's confession (in Acts 8), while sitting in a chariot, would that be OK as a format for making a confession of Christ?

If Paul could hear the jailer's confession in Acts 16, while in a jail, would that be OK as a format for making a confession of Christ?

If one can confess Christ while sitting in a chariot out in the desert, and another confess Christ while in a jail, why can't one confess Christ in a church at the conclusion of a sermon?

 
At Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:57:00 AM, Blogger Scott Price said...

Billy Graham is a false prophet and should be quickly rejected as a gospel preacher. The evidence of this is that Billy holds dogmatically to the 3 popular lies of the Devil. 1) God loves all without exception. 2) Christ died for all without exception. 3)God desires the salvation of all without exception.

It should be obvious to any who hold to "sovereign grace" that the implications of such lies are that Christ's death is of no effect and the god of such a "gospel" is a wimp who sent "another christ" NOT the one of grace, but rather that of freewill/works religion.

Any "sovereign grace" holder who does not named Billy as a false prophet is inconsistent. This is my problem with the Founders. This needs to become the issue.

Scott Price
www.GospelDefense.com

 

Post a Comment

<< Home