Does God Care About Numbers?
"Numerical growth seems to be a uniquely indigenous American phenomenon."
I read these words recently on a hyper/ hybrid/ neo/ extreme/ Reformed Calvinist web site. To protect the writer from embarrassment I'll forgo identifying him.
Is church growth merely an American trend? Many Reformed Flounder-friendly pastors and bloggers would have us believe so. God, they imply, really doesn't care much about numbers and growth. Taking encouragement from Tom Ascol, head of Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry!), some Southern Baptist churches have even taken the step of refusing to report their baptisms and attendance records in the Annual Church Profile. I wonder what Charles H. Spurgeon would think of that? Actually, I don't have to wonder. He said, "It has been noticed that those who object to the process [of providing church statistics] are often brethren whose unsatisfactory reports should somewhat humiliate them." Sound like anyone you know?
But the question is not what Charles Spurgeon or Tom Ascol or anyone else thinks about numbers and church growth, but rather, what does God think about it?
So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41.
But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand. Acts 4:4.
And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. Acts 5:14.
And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. Acts 9:42.
The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord. Acts 11:21.
And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. Acts 13:49.
Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. Acts 14:1.
Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. Acts 17:12.
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. Acts 18:8.
And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed." Acts 21:20.
Is numerical growth "a uniquely indigenous American phenomenon?" You be the judge.
posted by Charles @ 1:12 AM
25 Comments:
"And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." Luke 14: 23
I am enjoying the articles here!
God bless you both!
Stephen Garrett
Numbers & Founders
It appears, Charles, that the Founders (do care about "numbers" -- if the numbers relate to the so-called "resurgence" of "Reformed" Calvinism.
Remember awhile back, when there was a "survey" made by Lifeway about "Calvinism," and how much attention Tom Ascol paid to the "numbers"?
http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/09/lifeway-10-of-sbc-pastors-are-5-point.html
Tom wrote a long article about it, and seemed to be greatly encouraged by the percentage of "Calvinists" in the SBC.
So they do seem to care about the numbers when they relate to that subject.
But of that number, I wonder how many of them made professions of faith during a public invitation and perhaps prayed "the sinner's prayer" -- compared to those converted by a "direct operation" or under "Reformed Calvinist" preaching?
SPEAKING OF NUMBERS, CHARLES . . .
It has now been about two years, Charles, since you started The Calvinist Flyswatter at the suggestion of a Hybrid Calvinist. Do you suppose that Hybrid is somewhere celebrating the second anniversary of the Flyswatter, perhaps with Tom Ascol?
I know you are a big fan of Joel Osteen. Do you think the Lord is blessing Joel with lots of numbers down in Houston, or is he just learning effective tactics from his "brothers in Christ" - the Mormons?
BTW, thought you might want to read about this evangelistic encounter from one of your favorite bloggers:
http://timmybrister.com/2008/03/06/
the-cross-isnt-sexy-a-dying-mans-
confession
There is something else that brings the spotlight on many people wanting to pound on Mormons.
I'm reading more today that it is chic to denigrate Mormons buy denoting that they are a "cult".
Is it inappropriate to suggest that all religious movements are "cults"?
Brother Bob, hello!
You wrote, It appears, Charles, that the Founders (do care about "numbers" -- if the numbers relate to the so-called "resurgence" of "Reformed" Calvinism.
You're right. They really get excited over their proselyting, don't they?
Charles
Brother Bob Ross wrote, It has now been about two years, Charles, since you started The Calvinist Flyswatter at the suggestion of a Hybrid Calvinist. Do you suppose that Hybrid is somewhere celebrating the second anniversary of the Flyswatter, perhaps with Tom Ascol?
One thing the Flyswatter has demonstrated: The Hybrid/hyper/neo Calvinists are terrified of open, uncensored debate. After laughing at Alan Kurschner's use of the word "Whiteophobia" in regards to James White's debate partners, they banned my posts from their blogs after I said that James had "Rossophobia" for running from you.
That struck me as very unfair. They could make fun of James' debate buddies but as soon as someone poked a little fun back at James it became "divisive" and "hateful."
James White could blast Dave Hunt's lack of training in Greek, etc., but as soon as I questioned James's unaccrediated "doctorate" by mail then suddenly it because wrong to question academic credentials. I got a few posts banned on that subject also.
The hybrid/hyper/extreme crowd are so funny! It's been a great couple of years, hastn't it Brother Bob!
Charles
Joel?
rev. said...
I know you are a big fan of Joel Osteen. Do you think the Lord is blessing Joel with lots of numbers down in Houston, or is he just learning effective tactics from his "brothers in Christ" - the Mormons?
Some folks do like to pick on Joel, don't they?
If you have listened to Joel, or read his books, you are perhaps aware that Joel incorporates the use of the same "tactic" by which Ernest Reisinger, Dr. Brad Waggoner of Lifeway, and a lot of the Founders were saved -- repentance, faith in Christ, and "the sinner's prayer."
If a Mormon was saved that way, then would he possibly be a "brother" to Ernie and Brad?
That's just the thing, Bob, Joel says that Mormons don't need to be saved because they already are. That's what he said on the 12/23/07 edition of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
WALLACE: And what about Mitt Romney? And I've got to ask you the question, because it is a question whether it should be or not in this campaign, is a Mormon a true Christian?
OSTEEN: Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that's what I believe, so, you know, I'm not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,318054,00.html
Guess we shouldn't worry about the "little details," huh, Bob? Like, the Trinity, Christ being eternally existent as God, salvation by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone, sola Scriptura, things like that.
What message, exactly, are all those folks getting down in Houston? About being "better," or about being saved by grace?
TIMMY'S BLUSTER?
Rev. said...
BTW, thought you might want to read about this evangelistic encounter from one of your favorite bloggers:
http://timmybrister.com/2008/03/06/
the-cross-isnt-sexy-a-dying-mans-
confession
My first thought is, I hope Timmy's boss does not read Timmy blog! I would advise Timmy to get a first-rate apology to his superiors posthaste!
Timmy is paid to put in a certain amount of work for a certain salary. He not only strayed from his obligation to not use company time for private or personal matters, but now he has used this deed to solicite admiration from his blog's readers for what he did.
If Timmy is trying to impress his readers about his "witnessing," he is using a bad example. He is not getting paid to use his job-time to witness, unless his company approves. If he disapproves of company policy, then he can seek another job elsewhere. What if the thousands of people who work for this company were to utilize company time to promote their religious faith? If that were done, when could I and others expect delivery of our parcels -- in three or four weeks?
I have told people that have worked in my Christian book store that they are not paid to debate with customers with whom they differ on doctrine. If a customer wants to debate, the employee can call me and I'll handle the situation.
When Timmy applied for his current job, he should have asked if it is "OK" to engage in "ministry" on company time. If the company said "No," and if Timmy disliked the policy, then he could have looked for work elsewhere.
WHAT MESSAGE?
rev. said:
Guess we shouldn't worry about the "little details," huh, Bob? Like, the Trinity, Christ being eternally existent as God, salvation by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone, sola Scriptura, things like that.
What message, exactly, are all those folks getting down in Houston? About being "better," or about being saved by grace?
Are you saying, rev., that believing certain theological concepts must characterize a person before believing on Christ is of any value? How many theological views are involved? Do you think the thief on the cross and the Philippian jailer were "5pointers" and understood the "trinity," "imputed righteousness," "monergism," the "regulative principle," "covenant theology," etc. etc.?
Bob:
Joel Osteen stated publicly that Mormons ARE Christians. He wasn't saying that Mormons might become Christians. Joel was asked - point blank - "Is a Mormon a true Christian?" He replied, "Well, in my mind they are."
In relation to Timmy Brister...he wasn't using company time to detract from his work. He was carrying on a conversation at work that started with asking a guy about the cross he was wearing and the statement that he was a "Christian." Nothing illegal or unethical about that, Bob. Doesn't the Constitution and the Bill of Rights make it plain that Americans have freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Amazing how you are willing to ignore Joel's acceptance of non-Christians into the kingdom, so to speak, while refusing to give Timmy any credit for evangelism because you detest the Founders guys so much.
REPLY TO REV
Rev. said...
Joel Osteen stated publicly that Mormons ARE Christians.
If Milt Romney indeed believed on Jesus Christ as Saviour, do you believe he is saved, despite being a Mormon?
Or, do you really believe that all of those in unorthodox churches are unsaved? Do you also believe the Pedobaptists -- who believe that their infants (even unborn ones) are "born again" because the children are supposedly "covenant children" -- are saved?
rev: In relation to Timmy Brister... Doesn't the Constitution and the Bill of Rights make it plain that Americans have freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Do you think this amendment was designed so that employees, on the job and on the clock, have the right to use company time and facilities to engage in evangelistic activities and get paid for so doing?
Amazing how you are willing to ignore Joel's acceptance of non-Christians into the kingdom, so to speak, while refusing to give Timmy any credit for evangelism because you detest the Founders guys so much.
And it is "amazing" to me how you evidently have nothing better to do than try to find fault with Joel, yet you are somehow able to find time to bring out the Constitution to justify an employee's using company time to promote his religious faith and get paid for so using the company's time and facilities.
Bob:
Once again, since you don't seem to get it -- Joel Osteen stated publicly that Mormons ARE Christians. What about that don't you understand?!? If Mitt Romney had indeed believed on Jesus Christ as Savior, would he remain within the LDS? I believe that the "Mormon Jesus" is a completely different figure than the Person of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. I do not believe there is salvation EXCEPT through Jesus Christ - the Christ revealed in Scripture.
Asking about paedobaptists is apples and oranges. Presbyterians are within the parameters of the Christian faith, they are NOT a cult. Neither are the Methodists, Lutherans, etc. I do not believe their infants are born again/ saved simply because of baptism...and neither do they. You have misrepresented the Covenant Theology of the Presbyterians on this point.
Bob: is it okay to carry on any conversations at work, or must one be completely silent and not speak to co-workers unless it is "work related" in such a setting? Can people speak about the Super Bowl, things going on at home, etc., while they are working? If you say that people are not able to speak about these things -- and must speak only about work-relate issues -- then you will be consistent. However, if you say they are free to talk about these matters, then why aren't they free to talk about religion while they are working? The only exception to this would be if the company had set rules on the matter, but provided freedom to discuss such matters during break time. Otherwise, why can't they discuss these things while they are working? They certainly wouldn't be wasting company time if they are doing the work while they converse. There is a huge difference between wasting company time with idle chatter and talking while you work in a setting such as loading docks.
It amazes you how I "evidently have nothing better to do than try to find fault with Joel"?!? Well, gee, when someone says that cult / religious movement members -- outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy -- are "saved," how can *you* not find fault?
PEDOS MISREPRESENTED?
Rev. said...
I do not believe their infants are born again/ saved simply because of baptism...and neither do they. You have misrepresented the Covenant Theology of the Presbyterians on this point.
Unfortunately, rev., what you believe about this is altogether irrelevant. Pedos state what they believe, irrespective of your belief.
We have demonstrated time and again on this blog that the Pedobaptists teach that their supposed "covenant children," born to believers, are in "covenant relationship" with God, and receive "regeneration" either before, at, or soon after their baptism, and that baptism, while it does not itself regenerate, is the "sign and seal" of this supposed covenant relationship.
This view is clearly elaborated in the systematic theologies of men such as Shedd, Berkhof, and others. John Frame even holds that the
"covenant children" are born again before they are born physically.
Now, if you don't understand pedo doctrine, I'm sorry but I do not get paid to tutor you. When you have done more study on the subject, you can come back and I will accept your apology for saying that I have "misrepresented" the Presbyterians. I'm sure this was simply due to your lack of understanding of pedo doctrine on the subject.
W. G. T. SHEDD:
"Infant baptism does not confer the regenerating Spirit, but is a sign that he either HAS BEEN, or WILL BE conferred, in accordance with the divine COVENANT OF GRACE. The actual conferring of the Holy Spirit may be PRIOR to baptism, or IN THE ACT itself, or SUBSEQUENT TO IT. . . . the regenerating grace of the Spirit, signified and sealed by the rite, may be imparted WHEN the infant is baptized, or PREVIOUSLY, or at a FUTURE TIME." (Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, page 575.
LOUIS BERKHOF, who is highly commended by Iain Murray of "The Banner of Truth":
"LUTHER . . . made the efficacy of baptism dependent on the faith of the recipient; but when he reflected on the fact that infants cannot exercise faith, he was inclined to believe that God by His prevenient grace wrought an incipient faith in them through baptism; . . . . Reformed theologians solve the problem by calling attention to three things, which may be regarded as alternatives, but may also be combined. (1) It is possible to proceed on the assumption (not the certain knowledge) that the children offered for baptism are regenerated and are therefore in possession of the semen fidei (the seed of faith); and to hold that God through baptism in some mystical way, which we do not understand, strengthens this seed of faith in the child" (Systematic Theology, pages 641, 642).
A. A. HODGE:
"As regeneration is a change wrought by creative power in the inherent moral condition of the soul, infants may plainly be the subject of it in precisely the same sense as adults; in both cases the operation is miraculous, and therefore inscrutable. The fact is established by what the Scriptures teach of innate depravity, of infant salvation, of infant circumcision and baptism" (Outlines of Theology, page 464).
CHARLES HODGE:
"It does not follow from this that the benefits of redemption may not be conferred on infants at the time of their baptism. That is in the hands of God. What is to hinder the imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ, or their receiving the renewing of the Holy Ghost [i. e. regeneration], so that their whole nature may be developed in a state of reconciliation with God? Doubtless this often occurs" (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, page 590).
Bob:
You stated yourself, about the paedobaptist position, "baptism, while it does not itself regenerate, is the 'sign and seal' of this supposed covenant relationship." Exactly. I agree with you on that. But what did I say?!? Baptism is *not* to be equated with regeneration/ being saved. I do understand paedobaptistic doctrine, Bob, and you certainly aren't tutoring me. Do paedbobaptists believe that their children *will come* to salvation? Yes, they do, because they view the verse in Acts 38-39 as applicable. Do they believe infants may be saved? Yes, they do, citing John the Baptist as an example. This is, however, much different from the baptismal regeneration view which you are implying. We actually agree on the Baptistic side, Bob, but you are so harsh against paedobaptist Christians that it makes you unreasonable at points.
BTW, I notice you didn't talk about Joel Osteen's endorsement of the Mormon faith as being Christian (e.g., "born-again Christian"). Perhaps you shouldn't attempt to lecture others on forms of Christian theology when you aren't even certain of what constitutes *Christian* theology.
Baptism & Infants
Rev. said...
You stated yourself, about the paedobaptist position, "baptism, while it does not itself regenerate, is the 'sign and seal' of this supposed covenant relationship." Exactly. I agree with you on that. But what did I say?!? Baptism is *not* to be equated with regeneration/ being saved. . . .This is, however, much different from the baptismal regeneration view which you are implying.
We have NEVER EVER represented nor implied that Presbyterian pedos are equating baptism with regeneration. Check the Archives for yourself.
You do not seem interested in addressing the idea, however, that "covenant children" ARE VIEWED by pedos as being regenerated in infancy, and by some as being regenerated even before birth -- John Frame, for example. See this link: http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/05/southern-seminary-welcomed-john-frame.html
Now, if you agree with the pedos on those views, may I interest you in the purchase of a ticket to the moon?
Why have you avoided my question about Milt Romney's profession/salvation?
"If Milt Romney indeed believed on Jesus Christ as Saviour, do you believe he is saved, despite being a Mormon?"
You appear inclined to accept the idea that "covenant children" get regenerated before believing, yet you seem reluctant to believe that a person is saved at the point of believing in Christ as Savior, if he indeed believes on Christ in spite of some theological/ecclesiatical errors.
We do not "damn" the pedos who truly believe on Christ, despite their gross heresy about infant regeneration and "pre-faith regeneration."
"HARSH"?
rev. said:
We actually agree on the Baptistic side, Bob, but you are so harsh against paedobaptist Christians that it makes you unreasonable at points.
I think if you will check the writings on the Flyswatter, you will find that our "harshness" has focus on DOCTRINE and PRACTICE, not "Christians" per se.
It is true, one cannot usually specify a false doctrine or practice without specifying those persons who advocate the false doctrine and practice, and it may be perceived that those persons are the focus. But in reality, the criticism is directed at what we perceive to be false doctrine; the person is incidental. We are not being "harsh" against Christians, but we confess to being harsh against false doctrine.
Bob:
Do you mean Mitt Romney? I'm not familiar with Milt. ;)
If Mitt Romney believed on Jesus Christ as Savior, it would not be the same Jesus Christ as the "Mormon Jesus." If he were truly converted, he would not remain a Mormon.
I am *not* inclined to accept the idea that 'covenant children' get regenerated before believing, I'm just speaking about the paedobaptist position. I'm not reluctant at all to believe a person is saved if he/she believes upon the Lord Jesus Christ. I'm adamant in my belief that Mormonism is not Christian. Mormonism does not merely contain "some theological/ecclesiastical errors." It is entirely outside the bounds of Christianity.
Interesting that you speak of Mormons having beliefs which contain "some theological/ ecclesiastical errors" and speak of paedobaptist Christians as "heretics."
Two questions for you Bob.
1) Will heretics enter heaven?
2) Will Mormons, believing in the Mormon "Jesus" and remaining in the Mormon faith, enter heaven?
SPURGEON ON PEDOBAPTIST MISUSE OF ACTS 2:38, 39
rev. said:
Do paedbobaptists believe that their children *will come* to salvation? Yes, they do, because they view the verse in Acts 38-39 as applicable.
Your reference to that passage, rev., reminds of of what Spurgeon said about the Pedobaptist misuse of it. If you think we are "harsh," consider the following:
C. H. Spurgeon denounced this pedobaptist distortion in saying
"there never was a grosser piece of knavery under heaven" than the use a portion of Acts 2:39 as if it taught the pedobaptist theory (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 32, page 569).
As for the reference to John the Baptist, unfortunately his parents were not pedobaptists.
Why didn't you post my last reply, Bob? Just curious why you didn't want to answer those two questions and why you edited your comments. Did you realize what it sounded like saying that Mormons were merely in error while declaring Presbyterians were heretics?
Spurgeon was much less harsh by using the phrase "knavery" than you are with "heresy." I'm a huge fan of Spurgeon, and agree with him on the issue of baptism/paedobaptism.
REV & MORMONS
rev. said:
Rev. said...
Why didn't you post my last reply, Bob? Just curious why you didn't want to answer those two questions and why you edited your comments. Did you realize what it sounded like saying that Mormons were merely in error while declaring Presbyterians were heretics?
First, I am not the person in charge of the posts. Charles does that, and he is not a "full-time" blogger. He has always put up the posts as he has time and opportunity.
You continue to dodge the point about Mitt Romney. You know what I meant and what Joel meant. I won't answer any of your questions till you show a little respect for what I asked you.
Next, I use "heretic" of any one who teaches a serious "heresy." Presbyterians and Mormons both teach serious heresies, even as some Baptists do. But one can teach a serious "heresy" and still be a Christian -- or did you never read where Paul rebuked Peter, and where Jesus compared Peter to "Satan"?
Now when you can somehow bring yourself to face the question I asked you about Romney, I will pay some attention to any of your questions.
Bob:
I did answer your Romney question, I didn't dodge it in the least. Since you weren't paying attention, I'll restate my answer:
"If Mitt Romney believed on Jesus Christ as Savior, it would not be the same Jesus Christ as the 'Mormon Jesus.' If he were truly converted, he would not remain a Mormon."
How in the world could you say that answer is a dodge?!? Your the one dodging the questions, Bob. And yes, I do know what Joel meant. That's what troubles me so much.
Me "show a little respect"?! Nice, Bob, real nice. I answered your question, with no dodge, and then you accuse me of being disrespectful. Nowhere have I called you a "heretic" or a "knave," meanwhile you edit your comments and dodge two simple questions.
Let me repeat my Mitt Romney answer one more time, just so everybody's clear..."If Mitt Romney believed on Jesus Christ as Savior, it would not be the same Jesus Christ as the 'Mormon Jesus.' If he were truly converted, he would not remain a Mormon."
Tell me, Bob, do you believe that is an accurate statement? Will Mormons, believing in the Mormon "Jesus" and remaining in the Mormon faith, enter heaven?
MESSAGE TO REV.
Sorry, rev., I m not interested in rabbit trails. You know what I meant, and you know what Joel meant.
BTW, when are you going a apologize for falsely charging me with misrepresenting the pedos about their so-called "covenant"?
Still waiting for your answer and for your apology.
No replies on anything else till you come clean, fess up, and do the right thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home