Spurgeon Rebukes The Founders
In his March 28 blog, Brother Tom Ascol quotes from Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students. I wish Brother Tom would read the rest of the book and take it to heart. If he did, he would shut down Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry) faster than the running of James White from Bob Ross.Do Spurgeon's words remind you of any modern day organization?
Now change the words "Methodists and Revivalists" to "Southern Baptists." Sound like anyone you know? What about it, Tom?.... it will be seen that those who never exhort sinners are seldom winners of souls to any great extent, but they maintain their churches by converts from other systems. I have even heard them say, "Oh, yes, the Methodists and Revivalists are beating the hedges, but we shall catch many of the birds." If I harboured such a mean thought I would be ashamed to express it. A system which cannot touch the outside world, but must leave arousing and converting work to others, whom it judges to be unsound, writes its own condemnation. (page 343, Zondervan 1954 edition)
Charles
posted by Charles @ 9:09 PM
25 Comments:
FOUNDERS -- "PLANTING CHURCHES"?
Bob to Charles:
I noticed the following remark in a recent blog by Brother Tom Ascol of the Founders:
"We also plan to become more involved in helping churches become actively involved in planting new churches."
Do you think, Charles, this might indicate a small degree of "awakening" on the part of Tom Ascol that -- in regard to evangelism -- the Founders are among those who, as Iain Murray said, "have not been sufficiently alert to the danger of allowing a supposed consistency in doctrine to override the biblical priority of zeal for Christ and the souls of men"? (Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, page xiv).
If, since the Founders started, they had planted as many churches as they have planted "Bible Conferences" devoted to expounding their version of "Calvinism," they would be a veritable denomination!
They have majored on "preaching to the choir" rather than preaching to the lost and planting churches.
I seriously doubt they are going to plant any churches thru evangelism of the unsaved, but they may be able to plant a few from proselytes to Hyrbrid Calvinism.
To quote Iain Murray again:
"It is apparent that the recovery of doctrinal Christianity is not necessarily our chief need today. . . the priority which soul-winning had in Spurgeon's ministry is not commonly seen to be our priority. The revival in doctrine has scarcely been matched by a revival of evangelism." (ibid, pages xiii, xiv).
Brother Bob, Hello!
You said, I seriously doubt they are going to plant any churches thru evangelism of the unsaved, but they may be able to plant a few from proselytes to Hyrbrid Calvinism.
True. "Church planting" to The Flounders usually involves splitting a thriving Southern Baptist church.
Charles
Charles do you know what a liar is?
Anonymous, Hello!
Yes, I do. Would you care to elaborate as to why you asked the question?
Charles
Founders do not involve themselves in splitting churches. Reforming them possibly or leaving and starting anew but not contriversal splitting. SBC splitting are happening because of poor leadership by lacking pastors and the Warrenism etc. thats taking place. Two good example of major slitting over this issue in the state of Tennessee are GBC and BBC in Memphis. Also, not to forget the ressurgence and the splitting that continues over SBC and CBF. All these are taking place do to bad theology and lack of biblical living.
Anonymous, Hello!
You wrote, Founders do not involve themselves in splitting churches.
Incredible. And you asked me if I knew what a liar was?
Anon, Founders-friendly pastors have been splitting Southern Baptist churches for years now. Danny Akin, Frank Page, Paige Patterson and others have urged the Founders-friendly men to not conceal their theology when interviewing with a church. Also, Bob Ross has written extensively about it on this blog.
You can call it "reforming" but it amounts to sneaking the theology of "born again before faith" into churches who do not believe that way. The end result is a church split, which the extreme/hybrid/hyper Founders-friendly guys call a "church plant."
Charles
I know for a fact about splitting churches. It happened to us.
We had a Founders lover on our search committee. He recommended a strong Calvinist, with help from The Founders as I understand it. Of course we didn't know what a Calvinist was. He said he was a "historic Baptist." That sounded good to us.
Our new Calvinist pastor had not been in the pulpit a month when he started preaching a series on the "doctrines of grace." Within six months he stopped giving an altar call. That's when we really knew we had a problem.
One year out he took several young families with them after the deacons talked to him. He said it was a church plant. It seemed like a church split to me.
The Calvinist came to our church under false pretenses and split our church. Don't tell me what the Founders want to do, I've seen it firsthand.
Bill L (a Georgia deacon who survived a Founders pastor)
It is a shame Bill that your committee was so ignorate. Seems to be the problem in most SBC churches today. You had one committee member with deep spiritual and biblical roots and he used it to lead and the rest seem to follow. The fact that you as a deacon and the committee needed some education before seeking a new pastor. It is very sad when churches do not know their history, what the doctrines of grace are, and what a Calvinist is. I don't believe it to be false pretenses if a committee doesn't know what to ask then that is the committees fault not the one in consideration. Many of us who are Calvinist don't use the term so if you don't ask directly then.... and you wouldn't have know to ask directly because of lack of knowledge.
It gets so old when its always the canadates fault that the committee doesn't know how to do a pastor search.
Brother Bob Ross sent me the following to be posted here.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From Brother Bob Ross:
"REFORMING"?
Charles said...
You can call it "reforming" but it amounts to sneaking the theology of "born again before faith" into churches who do not believe that way.
I have read some of Founders' founder Ernest Reisinger's writings, Charles, and the "reforming" idea is what he promotes -- but he is aware that it will result in divisions. He says "three things always happen: some will leave, some will want to get rid of the preacher, and thank God, some will get right with God." (A Quiet Revolution, page 95).
Of course, Reisinger's idea of getting "right with God" would be adopting Foundersism.
The Founders' "reformation" is just about a parallel to the Alexander Campbell "reformation" of the 1800s as to methodology -- both of them fostered theological division and made proselytes from within Baptist ranks. The Campbellite "reformers" operated more like "undercover" agents, and sought to "take-over" churches. This likewise appears to be "Plan A" in the Founders' movement.
"DEEP SPIRITUAL AND BIBLICAL ROOTS"?
Anonymous said...
It is a shame Bill that your committee was so ignorate. Seems to be the problem in most SBC churches today. You had one committee member with deep spiritual and biblical roots and he used it to lead and the rest seem to follow.
Hello, Anonymous!
If this alleged leader was the "normal" modern-day Hybrid Calvinist who holds to the "born again before faith" idea promoted by the Founders and other "Reformed" sources, this leader is simply "deep" in the heresy of the pedobaptists such as Berkhof, Shedd, Frame, and Sproul, and of "Reformed" Baptists like Tom Nettles, Thomas Schreiner, James White, etc.
If this is the case with this leader, he is not "deep" in even comprehending John 3:16 and Acts 16:30, 31.
Bob you aren't making any since.
I am a calvinist who would agree with many of those you critize.
The point is related to BL comments and my response to that - SBC regardless of position on the ate to theology and theological issues. Hard to lead in ignorates.
I would consider you and Charles wrong theologically but though we disagree at least you have a position the majority of SBCer including pastors, deacons, lay leader, and the church as a whole are ignorate!
"IGNORANCE"?
Anonymous said...
Hard to lead in ignorates.
Ignorance is certainly a characterisic of the Hybrid Calvinists who are evidently ignorant of the fact that they are in conflict with the Creeds on the New Birth.
There is not a single orthodox Creed or Confession which teaches the "born again before faith" heresy of the Hybrid Calvinists.
Bob and Charles - question? - Are these you judge because of their Calvinist Belief to whatever degree going to Hell as unbelievers?
"GOING TO HELL?"
Anonymous said...
Bob and Charles - question? - Are these you judge because of their Calvinist Belief to whatever degree going to Hell as unbelievers?
It does seem probably, Anon, that there are many professing "Calvinists" who have at leat theoretically missed the Gospel . . . or, as Tom Ascol says, "lost the Gospel." I hope their theoretical error is inconsistent with their actual experience. We believe many are truly saved who are in very serious error and confusion on theoretical matters.
If they theoretically think they were "born again before faith" in Jesus Christ, this does at least raise the question about their conversion. It is not for me or Charles to make a judgment about their spiritual condition, but we are justified in calling attention to their theoretical departure from the truth of the Gospel of salvation thru faith in Christ (John 3:14-18).
It is abundantly clear to me that the two of you have no real concept of what "Calvinism" is. Spurgeon, a devout Calvinist, battled hyper-Calvinists. If that is the goal of this blog then I would wholeheartedly endorse you. Surely, some who claim Calvinism elevate the doctrines of grace above the rest of scripture, which is theologically and morally reprehensible. However, there are many people of theologically reformed persuasions who wholeheartedly endorse missions and evangelism and are actively striving in these areas equally with their commitment to historic biblical theology. Many of these churches, such as Mark Driscoll's Mars Hill Church and Matt Chandler's The Village Church, are far out pacing traditional SBC churches in reaching un-churched non-Christian people.
I would have more respect for you if you would advertise exactly who you were, where you were currently serving and at what rate people were coming to saving faith through your ministry. Perhaps more importantly, how are those converted through your ministry doing at being disciples and building disciples where they live?
www.missionalstudents.typepad.com
"NO REAL CONCEPT"?
Caleb Land said...
It is abundantly clear to me that the two of you have no real concept of what "Calvinism" is.
Hell, Caleb!
If you have bothered to examine the Archives of the Flyswatter, I hardly see how you could make that statement.
This blog has demonstrated that the "Calvinism" of the "born again before faith" advocates is not Creedal Calvinism, and that the "Calvinism" of those we have refuted is non-creedal "Hybrid Calvinism."
We are not tempted to "chase rabbits" to shift attention away from this matter. If that costs us your "more respect," we will just have to live with the loss.
"HELL" WAS A TYPO
Bob to Charles:
Just so you'll know -- I did not intend to "cuss," -- the word "Hell" in "Hell, Caleb" was a "typo" and should have been "Hello, Caleb."
I don't want to become another "Don Imus"!
caleb for all intensive purposes if you will note the fly is dying......
WISHFUL THINKING?
Anonymous said...
caleb for all intensive purposes if you will note the fly is dying......
What else is new? That kind of wishful thinking has been going on ever since Charles started the Flyswatter.
The fly is dying - note the number of people posting it would be me, Charles, Bob, Charles, Bob.
Since you state that these you judge are going to hell for heresy their really is no purpose for this site. CAST YOUR STONE AND MOVE ON CHARLES AND BOB!
Anonymous, Hello!
You asked about whether Calvinists were going to hell.
Hell is avoided only one way: Saving faith in Jesus Christ. "He that hath the Son hath life."
As to "a dying fly," you are correct. Except it was The Calvinist Gadfly which died. The Calvinist Flyswatter is very much alive.
Because the Reformed "born again before faith" extreme/hyper/hybrid Calvinst bloggers are terrified of Brother Bob Ross, they have unified in boycotting this blog. Timmy Brister even went so far as to urge other bloggers not to let me post on their sites.
Censorship is a frequent method of these guys. They don't like anonymous posters, unless they agree with them. They will delete "mean comments" but then turn around and trash SBC leaders.
The stats show that The Flyswatter has as many readers as ever, many from non-profit organizations such as SBC seminaries and colleges. If the readers post here they are ostracized and rebuked by the Reformed bloggers.
But that's OK. They're reading, and learning that The Founders are not all that they say they are.
Charles
GIVING A "BAD NAME" TO ANONYMITY
Anonymous said...
Since you state that these you judge are going to hell for heresy their really is no purpose for this site.
You, Anon, are giving a "bad name" to anonymous posters. Your misinformation and misrepresentation is not an attribute of all anonymous posters, I'm sure, but your post does tend to discredit those who prefer anonymity in posting.
Why don't you try to get your facts straight before you display your shortcomings?
Just as an inducement, I will give you $100 for anywhere either Charles or I have stated that someone with whom we differ is "going to hell."
We have dealt with doctrinal and theoretical issues, not in judging who is "going to hell for heresy." That judgment belongs only to the Lord.
Until you get your facts straight, why not sit on the sidelines awhile? You are not embellishing the cause of those whom you seem to imply you represent.
BOYCOTTING THE FLYSWATTER
Charles said...
Because the Reformed "born again before faith" extreme/hyper/hybrid Calvinst bloggers are terrified of Brother Bob Ross, they have unified in boycotting this blog. Timmy Brister even went so far as to urge other bloggers not to let me post on their sites.
And don't forget, Charles, the prince of verbosity, GENE BRIDGES, also called for a similar boycotting. His verbosity was refuted and he couldn't take the heat. The more he wrote, the deeper he put his foot into his mouth. We took away all the Baptist Confessions and Baptist Scholars from him, and nailed his hide to the wall along with his baby regenerationist "theologians."
DEAD HYBRID "FLIES"
Charles said...
As to "a dying fly," you are correct. Except it was The Calvinist Gadfly which died. The Calvinist Flyswatter is very much alive.
Thanks, Charles, for calling attention to the flight and blight of the "Gadfly." I seldom visit any of the Hybrid blogs, and was not aware of this.
The fact is, Charles, the Flyswatter has swatted several who are either dead or their wings seem to have become inoperable . . . so far as trying to counter, refute, or deny what has been presented on the Flyswatter.
The evident reason for this, Charles, is that the modern Hybrid "flies" are clearly contrary in doctrine to the Confessions and our Baptist scholars. They are evidently "comfortable" only in a "baby regenerationist" Reformed environment, wherein they enjoy the fellowship of the "born again before faith" advocates.
Those who once ventured to post on this blog -- such as James White, Scott Morgan, Gene Bridges, Sam Hughey, etc. -- have the "greener pastures" of the Reformed for their Hybrid ideas.
In Illinois I know a "Founders lover" who wanted state funds to help with a new church "plant" which was actually a split from another church.
They have no shame.
JS
Post a Comment
<< Home