Tom Nettles' Influence On Seminary Students
In this article, Brother Bob Ross once again demonstrates how the true Founders of the Southern Baptist Convention are quite different than the men aligned with Tom Ascol's Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry).Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NETTLES' INFLUENCE ON SEMINARY STUDENTS
Bob to Charles:
I noticed, Charles, that a frequent favorable references are made by Timmy Brister and some other Southern Seminary students to Pedobaptist Iain Murray's anti-invitation booklet.
The question is, Charles, why should Baptist students in a Baptist seminary be following the thinking of a "baby baptizer" who thinks that "covenant children" inherit salvation and get born again in infancy? It would be a rather natural consequence that such a pedobaptist as Murray would not have any use for an invitation inasmuch as he thinks the "elect" get "regenerated" when they are yet babies.
There is a close affinity between Murray and the Flounders, since Ernest Reisinger was an earnest disciple of Murray, and Reisinger founded the Flounders. TOM NETTLES is on the Board of Directors of the Flounders, and teaches at Southern Seminary.
Nettles has written against invitations in his book By His Grace and For His Glory, and probably has taught his students at SBTS his anti-invitation views.
So here it is, Nettles, a Flounder, like Murray and Reisinger opposes the view of one of the Founders of Southern Seminary, JOHN A. BROADUS.
Broadus wrote On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, and used the book as a text at the Seminary. It has also been used in other SBC seminaries and other schools over the years. Dr. Broadus, under the heading of the "Conduct of Public Worship," says:
"In many churches it is customary to follow every sermon with an 'invitation' hymn, during which any who desire to MAKE A PUBLIC PROFESSION OF FAITH or to become members of the church are INVITED to present themselves by COMING TO THE FRONT" (page 375, 1943 edition by Broadman Press).
Dr. Broadus was converted under circumstances where invitations were used (Life and Letters of John A. Broadus by A. T. Robertson, pages 33-35).
Broadus also made his first convert in connection with a public invitation.
Dr. A. T. Robertson reveals how young John won his first soul to the Lord during a public invitation following a sermon:
>>
In a meeting a few months after John's conversion, the preacher urged all Christians at the close of the service to move about and talk to the unconverted. John looked anxiously around to see if there was anybody present he could talk to about his soul's salvation. He had never done anything of the kind before. Finally he saw a man not very bright, named Sandy. He thought he might venture to speak to him at any rate; and Sandy was converted. John soon went away to teach school. Whenever he came back Sandy would run across the street to meet him and say; "Howdy, John? thankee, John. Howdy, John? thankee, John."
Doctor Broadus often told of this first effort of his at soul-winning and would add: "And if ever I reach the heavenly home and walk the golden streets, I know the first person to meet me will be Sandy, coming and saying again: 'Howdy, John? thankee, John.'"
>>
I doubt seriously you would ever find Tom Nettles following the example of young John Broadus and "move about and talk to the unconverted" at the close of a sermon, seeking to win a soul to the Lord during a public invitation.
It seems logical that the current crop of SBTS students who are blogging against public invitations are the disciples of Tom Nettles and not of John A. Broadus.
posted by Charles @ 10:19 PM
16 Comments:
Just how is "move about and talk to the unconverted" the same as an altar call?
Too bad that John Broadus studied under paedobaptists at Princeton, eh?! It must have been their influence that caused him to write in his Abstract of Systematic Theology (Ch. 32) that "[Conversion] is the result of regeneration," and, "Regeneration (as in infants) may exist without faith and repentance, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Therefore, regeneration precedes."
BOYCE
Rev. said...
Too bad that John Broadus studied under paedobaptists at Princeton, eh?!
That's true, but it does appear that Baptist views prevailed over the pedobaptist views, for
Boyce wrote:
"The Scriptures CONNECT the two (regeneration and conversion) under the ONE IDEA of the NEW BIRTH. . . . Regeneration and Conversion is INCLUDED under the ONE term REGENERATION" (Abstract of Theology, pageS 373, 374).
This distinguishes Boyce from the likes of Shedd, Berkhof, the Hodges, Sproul, Frame, and other pedos who teach otherwise.
Mark said...
Just how is "move about and talk to the unconverted" the same as an altar call?
They are the "same" in the sense that the purpose of each is to press upon people the personal need to repent and believe in Jesus Christ and confess Him as Lord and Savior before men.
C. H. Spurgeon had soul winners in his congregation who were nicknamed his "dogs," for they watched the congregation for those who appeared to have been wounded by the Word preached. These "dogs" would afterwards go after these wounded souls and try to win them to the Lord.
Spurgeon said:
"There is a wonderful work to be done in those lobbies and in those pews after a service. There are some dear Brothers and Sisters who are always doing it—they call themselves my, 'dogs' — for they go and pick up the birds that I have wounded! I wish that they might be able to pick up many tonight. Oh, that some of you might always be on the alert to watch a face and see whether there is any emotion there! Just paddle your own canoe alongside that little ship
and see whether you cannot get into communication with the poor troubled one on board and say a word to cheer a sad heart."
(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 38, year 1992, page 549. Online at http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols37-39/chs2282.pdf
This used to be rather common in soul-winning Baptist churches -- to "move about and talk with the unconverted," during an invitation and afterwards. I recall seeing it in my younger years, and in fact, I myself was approached by loving, concerned Christians on more than one occasion.
Amen! I love the flyswatter! Spurgeon would be proud!
I do not believe Boyce was using the term "regeneration" in its biblical signification, but in its theological. I believe that he would equate regeneration with the new birth, bibilically speaking, as you have pointed out. Can a infant go to heaven without the new birth?
I do not believe that Boyce spoke anything but an opinion when he spoke of regenerated infants who were not born again, or what was merely hypothetically possible. But, it is also possible that infants can have faith, and I do not think Boyce would deny this.
Why do these regeneration before faith advocates always run to the case of the infant? To a case of which the scriptures say nothing?
God bless and keep up the good work Charles.
Stephen M. Garrett
"I doubt seriously you would ever find Tom Nettles following the example of young John Broadus and "move about and talk to the unconverted" at the close of a sermon, seeking to win a soul to the Lord during a public invitation."
Then you obviously know NOTHING about Tom Nettles. You should immediately repent from your slanderous assumption. I think you should also publicly apologize for such useless speculation.
I'm truly not surprised that you didn't post my previous comment. It seems that, to refer to a quote of Brother Bob Ross "the Pharisaical spirit of judgementalism which characterizes" this blog is still intact.
May God continue to shower His grace upon you because of His good pleasure.
b, Hello!
You said, "I'm truly not surprised that you didn't post my previous comment."
The Flyswatter is not as swift with the posting as some other blogs.
So many Reformed flies to swat....so little time.
B, are you related to Tom?
Charles
NETTLES
B Nettles said...
Then you obviously know NOTHING about Tom Nettles. You should immediately repent from your slanderous assumption. I think you should also publicly apologize for such useless speculation.
Bob's comment:
Does this mean that you know that Tom Nettles does like Broadus did and "move about and talk to the unconverted" at the close of a sermon?
If you know this to be the case, then it would certainly have an influence upon my "assumption" and "speculation." However, I wonder how Tom would harmonize this with his opposition to public invitations wherein this activity generally has taken place?
POSTING POSTS
B Nettles said...
I'm truly not surprised that you didn't post my previous comment.
For the past two years (almost) that I have submitted comments to the Flyswatter, I have found that Charles oftenimes has to have his own convenient time to post them, but he always does so.
This blog seems to be an "avocation" with Charles, not a "vocation." In due time, Charles has never failed to post my comments. You will probably find that this is the same experience you will have in regard to your posts. Just exercise a little patience.
Dear Charles:
Why do the "reformed" Baptists and those who teach "regeneration before faith," not see that "regeneration BEFORE faith" is all the same as saying "regeneration WITHOUT faith"?
Is that not really what they teach when they say "regeneration before faith"? Are they not saying "regeneration without faith"?
God bless and keep up the good work.
Stephen Garrett
Steven, Hello!
You asked, Is that not really what they teach when they say "regeneration before faith"? Are they not saying "regeneration without faith"?
Yes, certainly that is what they are saying. A few, such as John Frame, are honest enough to admit it. When asked, "What doctrines must one believe to be saved?", Frame responded by saying, "None. I hold the Reformed view that children in infancy, even before birth, can be regenerated and saved, presumably before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs." Even John Calvin rejected the "regeneration before (without) faith" heresy.
Charles
I'm new to your blog. I find it refreshing considering the "edge-of-reality" stuff I've been reading on most Calvinist blogsites.
It looks as though this small group has orchestrated Mohler into a position of becoming the new SBC president.
I find that his comments over the years have been anything but healing, bridge-building or unifying.
I find him of the same cloth as Robertson and Falwell.
If the SBC is in a death-spiral, then Mohler is the perfect man to keep it spinning downward.
Alter calls or not is amatter of exercising wisdom. It is true the that most alter call repsondents dont truly repent nowadays for various reasons. Some call alter calls without even having preached the word. There is more room for deception in our age than in ages past. I would rather have no alter call than have one a la Benn Hinn. Having said so, 'the Lord knows those that are his' and they will surely be saved by the preaching of his faithful servants
Hi.
I'm wondering if you would mind commenting on Mohler throwing his hat in the ring for SBC prez.
MOHLER FOR SBC PRESIDENT?
Anonymous said...
Hi.
I'm wondering if you would mind commenting on Mohler throwing his hat in the ring for SBC prez.
I am more concerned that Mohler heads the Seminary in Louisville than about his being president of the SBC.
His hiring and toleration of Hybrid Calvinists on the Faculty will eventually do more harm than anything he could ever do as president of the SBC.
If the messengers to the Convention were duly informed of the "born again before and without faith" Hybrid Calvinism being spawned at SBTS, I do not believe Mohler would stand a chance of being elected.
Post a Comment
<< Home