Are The Founders Guilty of Treason To God According To Spurgeon?
Should Baptists such as Tom Nettles, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and Tom Ascol participate in Bible conferences with Presbyterians? In this article, Brother Bob Ross quotes C.H. Spurgeon as saying that such conferences constituted a "treason to God."The Calvinist Flyswatter has long warned of wanna-be Presbyterians (my opinion) such as Ascol, Nettles, Dever, and Mohler and their close affiliations with Pedobaptists.
To give just a few examples, in the past we noted
Dr. Tom Nettles was to speak at a Presbyterian church and conference,
Southern Seminary Welcomed John Frame Who Teaches Salvation Occurs By Believing Nothing,
the praise given to R.C. Sproul by Al Mohler,
and the fact that Dr. Mohler preached for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) at their 1999 meeting.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
C. H. SPURGEON DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN "CONFERENCES" WITH PEDOBAPTISTS (BABY BAPTIZERS) [08/02--2007]
My good friend and Spurgeon aficionado, Pastor Lennie Wilson of Rosedale Baptist Church in Beaumont, visited our book store on Wednesday, accompanied by his good wife, Arlene. We enjoyed a Catfish dinner together right here in the office.
Brother Wilson has long been a devotee of C. H. Spurgeon and has for years been in the habit of calling my attention to many interesting and valuable materials about CHS. A few years ago, he and his church even sponsored a special service in commemoration of the one hundredth year of Spurgeon's death in 1892. I was delighted to be on the program, and was impressed by Brother's Wilson display of Spurgeon artifacts and memorabilia.
During the visit yesterday, Brother Wilson called my attention to an item in Spurgeon's The Sword and the Trowel magazine of November 1871, page 498. The title of the article by Spurgeon is "Advanced Thinkers," and among other things, it reveals that Spurgeon was opposed to the type of unionism which compromises with the Pedobaptists (baby baptizers), such as is prevalent today among the Founders and some of the staff at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, including Dr. R. Albert Mohler and Dr. Tom Nettles.
We often read or hear talk admonishing to "not make an issue" over some "minor" matter, especially if it would be offensive to preachers of a baby baptizing sect which advocates "Reformed" theology. After all, so we are advised, the "enemy" is the "synergist," the "Arminian," the "Pelagian," and not the non-immersionist baby baptizing "Reformed" brethren.
And so we often witness instances wherein the "Reformed" Baptist brethren such as the "Founders," Dr. Mohler, Dr. Nettles, and others huddle for "Conferences" with baby baptizers such as Sproul, Duncan, Wells, and others on the order of the several Presbyterians featured on the DVD which Tom Ascol has recently mailed to SBC pastors in Florida. It seems that some of the baby baptizers are more adept at expounding "Reformed" ideas than are the "Reformed" Baptists.
Here are Spurgeon's remarks which rebuke this type of thing, which may be accessed on the Internet at the Spurgeon Archive [http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/advnth.htm]:
>>
False doctrine is not rendered innocuous by its being winked at. God hates it whatever glosses we may put upon it; no lie is of the truth, and no charity can make it so. Either a dogma is right or wrong, it cannot be indifferent. Conferences have been held of late between Baptists and Paedobaptists, in which there has been most oily talk of mutual concessions, one is to give up this and the other that. The fit description of such transactions is mutual, or rather united, treason to God. Will the word of God shift as these conspirators give and take? Are we, after all, our own law-makers; and is there no rule of Christ extant? Is every man to do as seemeth good in his own eyes? If we, on the one side, set up immersion on our own authority, and they, on the other side, bring forward the infant on their own account, we may both very wisely drop our peculiarities, for they are of man only, and, therefore, of superstition. But, if either side can find support in God's word, woe to it if it plays false to the will of the Great Head. We quote this merely as an illustration; and, as it concerns minor matters, it the more clearly sets forth the emphatic stress which we would lay upon loyalty to truth in the weightier matters of our great Master's law. The rule of Christians is not the flickering glimmer of opinion, but the fixed law of the statute book; it is rebellion, black as the sin of witchcraft, for a man to know the law, and talk of conceding the point. In the name of the Eternal King, who is this liberal conceder, or, rather, this profane defrauder of the Lord, that he should even imagine such a thing in his heart?>>
It is one thing for Baptists to regard all born again believers as brethren in Christ despite denominational, baptismal, and ecclesiastical differences, but it is quite another thing to "wink" at serious and misleading errors on the part of any of our brethren. "Reformed" baby baptizers generally advocate the idea that their children are "regenerated" either before they are actually born, or very soon after they are born. This is taught in the most reliable of the Pedobaptist theologies, includng W. G. T. Shedd, Louis Berkhof, the Hodges and others, and such an error is no small matter to us as Baptists. We hold, with Spurgeon, that this idea can have destructive consequences.
Therefore, we do not believe Baptists should embellish and fellowship Pedobaptist brethren to the extent that it would appear that their heresy is of no great significance. For the "Founders" and other "Reformed" Baptist brethren, who snuggle with Pedobaptists in "Conferences," to make the claim that they are modern successors of Spurgeon and other Baptists of the past is a farce.
posted by Charles @ 9:12 AM
40 Comments:
lets let "What about Bob" explain why CHS had A.T.Pierson( a Baby baptizer) fill the pulpit during CHS' illness AND the congregation voted to suceed CHS at his death.
Also why GEORGE ROGERS (a baby baptizer)was HEADMASTER of CHS college who CHS was willing to give the title of REVEREND
he was CHS' "Beloved Friend"
Reply to Jack
Bob to Jack:
I don't think there is really anything to "explain," Jack. What are you implying -- that Spurgeon did not practice what he preached?
Simply read what Spurgeon said. He doesn't think it is right for Baptists to have "conferences" with the pedobaptists. Cases such as you mention really have no bearing on the issue.
As for Spurgeon's successor at the
Tabernacle, it was not A. T. Pierson, but his rather own son, Thomas Spurgeon. Whereas Pierson did some temporary "fill-in" preaching at the Tabernacle, Spurgeon said of Pierson, "There is no danger of him being thought of as my successor, since he is a Presbyterian" (A History of Spurgeon's Tabernacle, page 36).
The case of George Rogers appears to be more of a circumstantial matter than anything else. You can read about how the College started in Spurgeon's Autobiography. At the outset, Spurgeon did not set out to start of
College, but he was only interested in responding to young T. W. Medhurst who wanted some tutoring about pastoring, and CHS' friend, Rogers, was available and willing to help. Spurgeon really had no idea or plan about establishing a College, but simply arranged for Medhurst to live with his personal ministerial friend, George Rogers, an Independent minister, who could give some help to the young man on some of the matters pertaining to being a minister.
Later on, when aging friend Rogers eventually retired, he was replaced by a Baptist, David Gracey, in 1881.
I don't see how that kind of relationship with Rogers conflicts with the broader and more specific practice which Spurgeon presents in the materials quoted in the previous post.
Can a Calvinist and an Arminian participate together in a conference? Wouldn't one or the other be committing treason to God by "winking" at false doctrine as if the truth didn't exist or didn't matter?
I find it absurd that you claim that sharing a stage at a conference is inappropriate but Spurgeon's invitations to paedo's to fill the pulpit at his church is OK. You have picked up on the word "conference" without understanding what Spurgeon meant by it.
REPLY TO PAUL:
Bob to Paul:
I would not be surprised, Paul, to learn that you are either a "Flounder" or a "Pedo." But if we don't understand Spurgeon, perhaps you can enlighten us.
well Bob you came up a little short on Pierson: factis( page 36 of Haydens Tabernacle History) He was "Intrim Pastor" for12 months!
don"t you think that a year in the pulpit would do much more harm than one hour speaking at a conference? of course if we are talking Spurgeon's impecability then I guess you win!
I am not a flounder or a baby baptiser so you cannot use the
ad-homin attact on me like you did Paul
"Intrim Pastor"?
Bob to Jack:
Jack Armstrong said...
well Bob you came up a little short on Pierson: factis( page 36 of Haydens Tabernacle History) He was "Intrim Pastor" for 12 months!
I'm sorry, but I do not find Hayden referring to Pierson as "intrim pastor." He was simply a temporary pulpit "supply."
James Spurgeon was "co-pastor" with CHS, and still occupied that pastoral position until the calling of Thomas Spurgeon in March 1893, after which James resigned a short time later. (See Hayden's History of the Tabernacle, page 36).
No pedobaptist was ever pastor at the Tabernacle.
A. T. Pierson does not seem to have been a staunch pedobaptist, as he was immersed by James Spurgeon in 1896. Even pedo Iain Murray describes Pierson as "very moderate in his attachment to paedo-baptist belief for some years" (The Forgotten Spurgeon, page 211).
You say you are not a Flounder nor a Pedo. You could have added that you also are not exactly a scholar in Spurgeonic Historian.
BOB TO JACK
Jack said;
I am not a flounder or a baby baptiser so you cannot use the
ad-homin attact on me like you did Paul
In view of the fact that there is a "Jack Armstrong" who is affiliated with the Flounders (aka Founders), the thought did cross my mind that you might be a Flounder.
as the icon spurgeon said "he is not my rabbi"
12 months or 1 hour still goes unanswered! Bob, which could have the most influence? please define for me Yours and Spurgeons take on "Pulpit Supply" and "Interim Pastor" especially in light of ordination being simply empty hands on empty heads
JACK-IN-THE-BOX?
Bob to Jack:
You are wobbling, Jack, like the clown at the Jack-in-the-Box fastfood restaurant.
You started this thread by alleging that Spurgeon's church voted for A. T. Pierson to "suceed CHS at his death."
Now, you have wobbled over into nit-picking about terminology. Until you have faced and accepted the facts of Spurgeonic history, it is not terminology on which you need information.
Spurgeon never intended for Pierson to "suceed" him, for he expected to recover from his illness so as to return to his ordinary pastoral work. And when he died, the church NEVER voted to install Pierson as his successor, but they voted to call Thomas Spurgeon.
The Tabernacle never has been pastored by a pedobaptist at any time for any length of time. During Pierson's supply, after CHS's death, the only "pastor" was James Spurgeon, who had been CHS' co-pastor for years.
Besides these facts, your only purpose seems to be to imply that CHS was somehow not "consistent" with his statement about not having "conferences" with pedos, and that I am not "consistent" in referring to his comments. The legs of the lame are not equal.
Are you sure you are not the same "Jack Armstrong" who is listed by the Founders on their website? If not, perhaps it might be appropriate to apply for affiliation. Your "floundering" is somewhat parallel to how the Flounders frequently misrepresent Spurgeon.
well if you want to not say that 12 months is a LONG PULPIT SUPPLY
I will counter by saying that is is the total gestation period of a jackass
by the way would you admit that you are somewhere between a
3 finger and a 4 finger CA....... no not calvinist...a Campbellite?
you may now have the last word.
JACK'S GESTATION PERIOD?
Anonymous said:
well if you want to not say that 12 months is a LONG PULPIT SUPPLY
I will counter by saying that is is the total gestation period of a jackass
by the way would you admit that you are somewhere between a
3 finger and a 4 finger CA....... no not calvinist...a Campbellite?
On the "jackass" gestation period, are you referring to your personal history?
On the Campbellite thing, it is rather amusing to see how both "5 finger" Campbellites and "5 finger" Hybrid Calvinists of the modern "reformed" variety deny what Calvin taught on regeneration. Campbellites teach the "Word alone" idea, while Hybrids hold the "Spirit alone" idea.
Paul raised a legitimate question. Can a Calvinist and an Arminian participate together in a conference without committing "treason" by "winking at false doctrine"? He also raised a legitimate point about Spurgeon having a paedobaptist fill his pulpit. He implied that if it were wrong for Baptists to participate in conferences with paedobaptists, then it was wrong for Spurgeon to share his pulpit with paedobaptists.
Bob, why resort to defamation (e.g., "I would not be surprised, Paul, to learn that you are either a 'Flounder' or a 'Pedo'") instead of dealing with the issues raised? Paul asked a legitimate question and brought up a legitimate point.
WRONG PERSON?
rev said:
Paul asked a legitimate question and brought up a legitimate point.
I simply gave a quotation from Spurgeon. He spoke against "conferences" with pedobaptists. I'm not the "author" of his remark.
If Paul has a "point," then he can try to reconcile it with Spurgeon to his own satisfaction. Spurgeon often said and did things that the pedos and Hybrids don't like or agree with. We have pointed out a number of them on this blog.
I said what I did about Paul because it seemed he was speaking from either a pedo or Flounder affiliation.
The context of Spurgeon's quote seems to be ecumenical efforts of his day wherein they would seek to find common ground and reduce their statement of belief to something which both sides could affirm, leading to a "broad church". He speaks specifically of "oily talk of mutual concessions"--as if the truth of a position held and supported by Scripture were not important. Distinctive doctrines of churches would be reduced to mere preferences rather than convictions that must be either true or false.
I'm sure you can find modern parallels, but sharing the stage at conferences on Reformed theology is not one of them. Rigorous application of the principle you claim to see in Spurgeon will lead to an absurd isolationism wherein any doctrinal difference whatsoever must lead to avoidance of any type of discussion or collaboration.
"ISSUES RAISED"?
rev said:
Bob, why resort to defamation (e.g., "I would not be surprised, Paul, to learn that you are either a 'Flounder' or a 'Pedo'") instead of dealing with the issues raised?
My comment was not to "defame," but to suggest possible or probable identification which could have motivated Paul.
So far as the "issues raised" are concerned, I have dealt with the relevant matters. Paul presented a hypothetical matter, not an "issue" related to Spurgeon's comment and the matters of George Rogers and A. T. Pierson in Spurgeonic history.
Spurgeon specifically made a statement opposing "conferences" with Pedobaptists (Paedobaptists, if you prefer) by Baptists. The fact that Spurgeon had other associations with pedos in other categories is irrelevant. Paul alleged we did not understand Spurgeon about "conferences," but he did not elaborate as to why we were wrong.
Spurgeon's most prolific opposition during his ministry came from the pedos and the "super-duper" strong-as-a-bear's-breath Calvinists. These are the same "types" who are most critical of the
Flyswatter. Is Paul of this number?
SPURGEON'S "CONTEXT"?
Paul said;
The context of Spurgeon's quote seems to be ecumenical efforts of his day wherein they would seek to find common ground and reduce their statement of belief to something which both sides could affirm, leading to a "broad church".
Here is Spurgeon's comment which places emphasis upon the matter of IMMERSION of believers versus Pedobaptist view of infant baptism:
If we, on the one side, set up immersion on our own authority, and they, on the other side, bring forward the infant on their own account, we may both very wisely drop our peculiarities, for they are of man only, and, therefore, of superstition. But, if either side can find support in God's word, woe to it if it plays false to the will of the Great Head. We quote this merely as an illustration; and, as it concerns minor matters, it the more clearly sets forth the emphatic stress which we would lay upon loyalty to truth in the weightier matters of our great Master's law. The rule of Christians is not the flickering glimmer of opinion, but the fixed law of the statute book; it is rebellion, black as the sin of witchcraft, for a man to know the law, and talk of conceding the point. In the name of the Eternal King, who is this liberal conceder, or, rather, this profane defrauder of the Lord, that he should even imagine such a thing in his heart?
>>
The "context" uses IMMERSION and INFANT BAPTISM as an "illustration" of Spurgeon's point.
Furthermore, in the "context" of Spurgeon's overall ministry, it is abundantly clear that he emphasized Baptist views against Pedobaptist views. Just today, I had a guest and we were looking at Spurgeon's sermon in Volume 10 (pages 212, 213) where he speaks against what he calls "baby-baptism" and "birthright membership."
He says:
"We must not adulterate our membership by the reception of the children of godly parents, unless we have clear proof that they themselves are converted to God."
He also cites a case wherein he said, "I believe that the idea of birthright membership has tended materially to weaken the strength of that most respectable and once powerful denomination, the Society of Friends."
And if you will examine the history of apostasy in "Reformed" Protestant denominations you will easily discover that at the forefront are those denominations which baptize babies and enroll them as church members.
So we agree with Spurgeon -church membership is "adulterated" by this practice.
Bob said:
My comment was not to "defame," but to suggest possible or probable identification which could have motivated Paul.
I'm motivated by a desire for truth. Even if I were a "flounder" or "pedo" (clearly pejorative terms on this site), I might still be right.
What makes you think that a man writing over a hundred years ago would be referring to modern conference events wherein a panel of speakers is gathered to address, educate, and interact with an interested audience about a specific contemporary issue? As I point out in my previous comment, the context of what Spurgeon wrote here would indicate otherwise.
Bob, RE: context:
If you think that this essay by Spurgeon is all about infant baptism, you missed the whole point. As I think you allude to, this issue is merely illustrative of the extreme danger he sees in taking doctrinal positions to be mere preferences and not propositions that are either true or false. The opening paragraph of the essay provides the introduction, indicating the target of Spurgeon's attack: "liberal" thinkers who look down upon and denounce anyone who holds belief firmly as truth and tolerate anything except "intolerance", for which they have no sympathy whatsoever.
Is that not a fair summary of what Spurgeon is getting at in this essay? If not, what do you propose?
REPLY TO PAUL
Bob to Paul:
You said, "Is that not a fair summary of what Spurgeon is getting at in this essay? If not, what do you propose?"
I propose that you do more reading in Spurgeon's sermons and see his normal and consistent emphasis on baptism in his opposition to the baptismal errors of the pedobaptists. For example, he said:
"Now there is a danger in certain sections of the Church, to make too much of Baptism by linking it with regeneration, as
baptismal regeneration; but there is an equally great danger among us who are called Baptists, of making too little of
Baptism. We cannot make too much of it, because our belief that none ought to be baptized but those who are regenerate already, will always be a healthy check for our making too much of it; but we may make too little of it" (MTP, Volume 9, page 689).
As I have already pointed out, Spurgeon held infant baptism to be a very serious error:
>>"I do not know an error which causes the damnation of more souls than that at the present time. . . . Sacramental efficacy and baptismal regeneration, ALL SPRING FROM THE FIRST ERROR OF INFANT BAPTISM"<< (New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 6, page 168).
REPLY TO PAUL
Bob to Paul:
You said, "Is that not a fair summary of what Spurgeon is getting at in this essay? If not, what do you propose?"
I propose that you do more reading in Spurgeon's sermons and see his normal and consistent emphasis on baptism in his opposition to the baptismal errors of the pedobaptists. For example, he said:
"Now there is a danger in certain sections of the Church, to make too much of Baptism by linking it with regeneration, as
baptismal regeneration; but there is an equally great danger among us who are called Baptists, of making too little of
Baptism. We cannot make too much of it, because our belief that none ought to be baptized but those who are regenerate already, will always be a healthy check for our making too much of it; but we may make too little of it" (MTP, Volume 9, page 689).
As I have already pointed out, Spurgeon held infant baptism to be a very serious error:
>>"I do not know an error which causes the damnation of more souls than that at the present time. . . . Sacramental efficacy and baptismal regeneration, ALL SPRING FROM THE FIRST ERROR OF INFANT BAPTISM"<< (New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 6, page 168).
________________________
"CONFERENCES"?
Paul said:
What makes you think that a man writing over a hundred years ago would be referring to modern conference events wherein a panel of speakers is gathered to address, educate, and interact with an interested audience about a specific contemporary issue?
To my knowledge and recollection, Spurgeon never had any "conferences" other than the annual Pastor's College Conference. The day of so many "conferences" devoted to repetitious palabberating on "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinism with both Baptists and Pedobaptists on the program had not yet arrived.
But in view of the attitude of Spurgeon in opposition to both pedobaptism and the "born again before faith" notion, I do not think Spurgeon would have anything to do with the repetitious "conferences" on "Reformed" theology that we see today.
______________________________
Bob:
I suggest that you "do more reading" in the essay that is actually under question! It contains more than 3,000 words, and the only section that even tangentially refers to baptism is the quoted paragraph. Even this reference fits into the context of the larger work, which is clearly not baptism.
"Conference" as used by Spurgeon in this essay seems more likely to have the meaning "a multilateral diplomatic negotiation". I gather this because Spurgeon speaks of "talk of mutual concessions", a feature of diplomatic conferences but not professional conferences.
SPURGEON & PEDOS
Paul said:
"Conference" as used by Spurgeon in this essay seems more likely to have the meaning "a multilateral diplomatic negotiation". I gather this because Spurgeon speaks of "talk of mutual concessions", a feature of diplomatic conferences but not professional conferences.
Whatever spin you put on it, I do not get the impression that you appreciate Spurgeon's stand against pedobaptism and its promoters. You seem to be favorable to Baptists cuddlling with the pedos, and think that Spurgeon was wrong about the detrimental effects of their practices.
No, Bob, what I am favorable toward is reading things the way the author intended them rather than pressing the text into service for my own pet issues. I presented a brief positive case for my understanding of this passage from Spurgeon--as you requested--and it has gone unanswered. I could agree with you on your general principle and still take issue with your misuse of this Spurgeon essay. Of course, I am open to correction if I am wrong.
UNDERSTANDING SPURGEON
paul said...
No, Bob, what I am favorable toward is reading things the way the author intended them rather than pressing the text into service for my own pet issues.
Spurgeon cited "immersion" in contrast to pedobaptism as an "illustration" of his point, and emphasized that --
We quote this merely as an illustration; and, as it concerns minor matters, it the more clearly sets forth the emphatic stress which we would lay upon loyalty to truth in the weightier matters of our great Master's law.
It seems to me that Spurgeon is saying that there is to be no compromise with Pedobaptists on either the "minor" issues or the "majors," and "conferences" which would be held with pedos involving "oily talk of mutual concessions" is not to his liking.
I do not get the impression that you are "coming from" a committed Baptist platform which involves a conviction on both the "minors" and the "majors" as advocated by Baptists. In other words, I don't detect that you really care too much about either the mode of baptism nor the baptism of believers only. Consequently, you have no objections to "conferences" with pedos wherein such differences would be laid aside.
Bob:
Maybe we both have something to learn from this. After seeing that page, your comment made me laugh.
Are you familiar with Dr. Mohler's theological triage? I consider these questions about baptism to be second-tier issues under that framework.
Some humble musings:
I wonder how this essay by Spurgeon would be understood in terms of the categories of this triage. Clearly first-tier issues should not be compromised. Spurgeon points to a second-tier issue, baptism, as his example of the type of compromise between denominations that is a denial of truth and therefore quite dangerous. What about third-tier issues, though? Are compromises for unity appropriate in this area? For example, the BFM is sufficiently vague as to allow both those holding to a Reformed soteriology and those holding to an Arminian soteriology to subscribe to this statement of faith. Are we therefore traitors for this kind of oily concession? Or what about other issues such as eschatology? Does compromise for the sake of union and unity betray truth?
Perhaps I am asking too much of the text. Spurgeon was primarily interested in showing that there is truth and that it matters a great deal. Perhaps in his zeal to make this point forcefully, he does not enter into discussion of what types of compromise are acceptable and necessary on which types of issues.
MOHLER'S TRIAGE
Paul said:
Are you familiar with Dr. Mohler's theological triage? I consider these questions about baptism to be second-tier issues under that framework.
Unfortunately, Dr. Mohler's theoreticalisms are not always consistent with his actual practices. For example, he preaches rather sound Baptist doctrine to the Baptist choir, but then he embellishes pedobaptists in various and sundry associations.
The worst enemies of Baptists since 17th century England have been the pedobaptists. Even right here in his nation, in New England and Virginia, our ministers and churches were consistently opposed and even persecuted by the pedos. Our worst enemies in theology have also been the pedos. I think Spurgeon was right on target when he said --
>>"I do not know an error which causes the damnation of more souls than that at the present time. . . . Sacramental efficacy and baptismal regeneration, ALL SPRING FROM THE FIRST ERROR OF INFANT BAPTISM"<< (New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 6, page 168).
As president of a prestigious Baptist seminary, with his salary paid by Baptists, Mohler has no business whatsoever lending any embellishing support to any type of pedobaptist cause. If he wants to affiliate in some way with the pedos, let him do the honorable thing -- resign his post as a theological representative of Baptists who pay his salary.
Bob:
Do you ever interact with what other people say? It seems as if you just like to quote them and then launch into a tirade about the evils of paedobaptism and anyone who has any relationship with those who practice it. Just an observation....
I'm out.
TIRADE?
paul said...
It seems as if you just like to quote them and then launch into a tirade about the evils of paedobaptism and anyone who has any relationship with those who practice it.
I have emphasized what Spurgeon's views were about pedobaptism and its practice, and that we share them. I do not find that your comments have addressed Spurgeon's attitude.
Would you also call Spurgeon's following remarks a "tirade"?
The baptism of believers, we believe to be a reasonable, scriptural, and profitable service, calculated to strengthen and perpetuate every right feeling and conduct. But in whatever esteem we hold the erring Paedobaptist, and however cordially we say, and hope ever to say, "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity," we are obliged to think and speak of infant baptism according to a writer before quoted. "In it there is no conscience, no will, no reasonable service. It allies persons without their consent, or even their intelligence, to a religious creed; it forces upon them an unreasoning and unwilling service; it imposes upon them an unconscious profession; it anticipates the conduct of riper years to a degree which both nature and Scripture condemn; and is therefore a violation of their just rights."
Spurgeon on Baptism link:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:3fCtDP0sHs0J:www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/spurgbaptism.html+spurgeon%27s+appendix+to+watson%27s+body+of+divinity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
MOHLER ON HOMOS AMONG THE PEDOS
Bob to Charles:
As you know, Charles, the Church of England (Anglicans, Episcopalians) are in a stew over homosexuality in the ministry. It has even reached the boiling point here in Texas.
Dr. Albert Mohler has a blog on the subject, and he states:
The mere fact that the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson is the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop ensures that he will be a media celebrity on both sides of the Atlantic. To a great extent, he has become a symbol to both conservatives and liberals in contemporary Christianity. . . . The election of an openly homosexual bishop does not emerge out of the blue. It can be traced to a succession of events and decisions made by this church. The toleration of heresy precedes the toleration of homosexuality. Bishop Robinson helpfully reminds us of this important fact.
Link: http://www.albertmohler.com/
This homosexual bishop is in the Church of England due to his being baptized in infancy and enrolled as a church member.
Mohler quotes the London Times as saying --
The openly gay bishop whose ordination sparked the crisis in the Anglican Communion has claimed the Church of England would be close to shutting down if it was forced to manage without its gay clergy.
Both the Roman Church and the Church of England are pedos, and both have become rather notorious in recent times for their gay ministers. How did they get into these churches?-- By infant baptism.
As Spurgeon said --
>>"I do not know an error which causes the damnation of more souls than that at the present time. . . . Sacramental efficacy and baptismal regeneration, ALL SPRING FROM THE FIRST ERROR OF INFANT BAPTISM"<< (New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 6, page 168).
According to Dr. Mohler, "The toleration of heresy precedes the toleration of homosexuality."
Would Mohler extend this indictment to cover the practice of infant baptism, whereby the unregenerate are ushered into the church?
I find it interesting that Charles and Bob both have the same peculiar usage of the word "embellish". The word as the rest of the world uses it really doesn't make sense in the context that you guys use it in. It sounds as if Mohler is doing embroidery—or perhaps some filigree—on those hateful paedobaptists.
Paul, Hello!
You wrote, I find it interesting that Charles and Bob both have the same peculiar usage of the word "embellish".
I do not recall any usage by me.
Charles
EMBELLISHING PAUL
paul said...
I find it interesting that Charles and Bob both have the same peculiar usage of the word "embellish".
It appears that Paul evidently finds my use of the word embellish of more concern to him than the pedobaptist practices which give baptism and church membership to infants who in due time grow up to become Mafia members, gangsters, criminals, pedophile ministers, homosexuals, prostitutes, and other assorted deviants from Christian standards.
Charles:
You are right; I didn't notice that you were just posting Bob Ross's article. The usage is still peculiar. Maybe you could do some editing when this word appears in articles in the future! :)
Have a great Sunday, both of you!
Bob:
No, I just gave up on serious discussion with you since you continue (even in your latest comment) to make only passing reference to what I said before bashing paedobaptists. If you want discussion, you have to interact with what the other person says.
You are right, the correct usage of "embellish" is not a very important issue, and maybe I shouldn't have posted another comment at all. I'm not sure what your purpose is on this blog if you drive away anyone who disagrees with you.
My opinion remains that you took the quotation from the Spurgeon essay out of context and used it to make application that is not warranted by the text itself. Since you were unable—or at least unwilling—to defend your use of the text, you fall back to the stronger position that "paedobaptism is bad", which may be true, but is not the point that I was arguing with you about at all. The reason I don't engage on that point is not that I think it unimportant but rather that I see that you are on the ropes in your original argument, and I don't feel like letting you push me into a corner on a new one.
Have a great day!
EDITING
paul said...
Charles:
You are right; I didn't notice that you were just posting Bob Ross's article. The usage is still peculiar. Maybe you could do some editing when this word appears in articles in the future!
:)
Bob to Charles:
You are always welcome to edit my comments, Charles, for I trust your judgment.
However, if you were to follow Paul, I doubt if very much (if anything) of what I write would ever appear on the Flyswatter!
I think his heart lies in the pedobaptist camp!
Paul said:
My opinion remains that you took the quotation from the Spurgeon essay out of context and used it to make application that is not warranted by the text itself. Since you were unable—or at least unwilling—to defend your use of the text, you fall back to the stronger position that "paedobaptism is bad", which may be true, but is not the point that I was arguing with you about at all.
Perhaps you have forgotten that Spurgeon's material referred specifically to "pedobaptists."
False doctrine is not rendered innocuous by its being winked at. God hates it whatever glosses we may put upon it; no lie is of the truth, and no charity can make it so. Either a dogma is right or wrong, it cannot be indifferent. Conferences have been held of late between Baptists and Paedobaptists, in which there has been most oily talk of mutual concessions, one is to give up this and the other that.
The context has to do with "paedobaptists."
Spurgeon believed that the pedobaptism is a veritable root of false doctrine:
>>"I do not know an error which causes the damnation of more souls than that at the present time. . . . Sacramental efficacy and baptismal regeneration, ALL SPRING FROM THE FIRST ERROR OF INFANT BAPTISM"<< (New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 6, page 168).
Dr. R. Albert Mohler has recently been showing the relationship of some pedobaptist denominations to the promotion of accepting homosexuals in the ministry. Both Rome and some of the Protestant pedos have made the news in recent times on account of the relation to homosexuality in their ministers who have been "caught."
Bob:
If only repetition made an argument more convincing, you might make progress... Unfortunately for you paedobaptism still isn't the main point of Spurgeon's essay, and anyone who actually reads it can tell that. I'm not sure who you think you are going to convince here! (Hmm... I'm not sure who I'm going to convince either. What a pickle we are in!)
How 'bout this: I say I win, you say you win, and we both go home to pat ourselves on the back for our phenomenal rhetorical skills. At the very least, I think we have contributed to the longest comment thread that Charles has had in a long time, and that must count for something!
BOB TO PAUL
My first reply to you said, I would not be surprised, Paul, to learn that you are either a "Flounder" or a "Pedo."
After all of your posts, that's still the impression I have received from you -- and these types are not known for being convinced when something is contrary to their way of thinking.
Bob:
Good work! I can practically hear your back-patting from here! I especially liked how you ended the discussion (D.V.!) by reiterating the namecalling you started with. That must deserve an extra firm pat on the back for finishing with style. :)
OUT OF SOAP?
Bob to Paul:
I don't see anything which merits any further comments, Paul, as you seem to be out of soap. So I'll reserve my energy for the back-patting.
Post a Comment
<< Home