Thursday, April 24, 2008

Broadus on D. L. Moody

D. L. MOODY WAS LOVED
BY THE TRUE FOUNDERS

Charles said...
"Brother Bob, Hello! I can think of someone else who would probably not be welcome in Ascol's pulpit: D.L. Moody. . . . if I remember correctly, didn't Boyce have Moody come and preach at Southern Seminary?"

You are right on both counts. Not only Spurgeon and Boyce, but John A. Broadus was a good friend of Moody's, dined at Moody's home in Northfield, Massachusetts, and preached for Moody's Northfield Conferences. These items are brought out in A. T. Robertson's "Life and Letters of John A. Broadus."

One of the letters Broadus wrote to W. D. Powell says this of D. L. Moody:

"Louisville, Feb. 26, 1895: I am glad to hear about your proposed Missionary Conference, and to learn that our honored friends, Mr. Moody and Mr. Sankey are expected to attend. I have never heard Mr. Moody speak without gaining fresh and wholesome impulses in the right direction. He is one of THE MOST USEFUL AND JUSTLY HONORED CHRISTIAN MEN OF THE AGE, and I shall be exceedingly glad if he can give you his help" (pages 428, 429).

Probably the reason why the Flounders disdain Mr. Moody is due to the disdain for the great evangelist by Iain Murray of the Banner of Truth. It seems that every chance Murray gets to denigrate Moody, he attempts to so in his writings, which are so popular with the Flounders.

The pedobaptist disdain for Moody dates back to the 19th century when Moody went to Great Britain and was instrumental in the conversion of hundreds of Presbyterian pedobaptists, in both Scotland and later England, who supposedly had been "born again" as babies. Even quite a number of their ministers followed and supported Moody, and it so upset Hybrid Calvinist John Kennedy that he feared his pedobaptist denomination might be destroyed.

Kennedy wrote extensively against Moody, but Spurgeon came to Moody's defense. Iain Murray, however, favors Kennedy's Hybrid Calvinist opposition to Moody, and disagreed with Spurgeon. See my article, "Hypers vs. Spurgeon and Moody."

The difference between Moody and Murray is that Moody made converts to Christ, Murray makes proselytes to Hybrid Calvinism.
Moody's preaching brought revival, Murray's writings criticize revival. Moody was active in personal soul winning; Murray is active in the denigration of soul winning.

3 Comments:

At Friday, April 25, 2008 7:56:00 AM, Blogger Rick said...

Sounds like Murray echos most of the bitter trail that seems to embody most Cals I know.

A thoroughly unhappy lot.

And, thoroughly confused.

They really need to get their act together.

They like to go back and forth discussing the minutae of Scripture as if they are learned men and talk about depravity and unlimited election and limited atonement and predestination and the elect and the myriad nonsense of "what it takes" to earn salvation. And, in the end they finally revert back and say:

Ascol: "The promise of salvation is for all who will, through faith, receive Him as Lord."

Spurgeon: "...he who believes...has everlasting life"

Well, Hello?

Isn't that what non-Cals have been saying all along?

If faith and conduct are the criteria for salvation as has been said over and over and over again in the bible, then what is all this garbage with TULIP?

These guys focus way to much on what their "gurus" have said and then think it is Gospel.

They don't use Scripture to bolster their case. They use words of men.

 
At Friday, April 25, 2008 10:04:00 AM, Anonymous Hugh Donohoe said...

Rick,

You sound thoroughly unhappy...



You also sound thorougly confused...

You may not like Calvinism, I personally don't hold to TULIP to define what I believe..but Calvinists as a whole are careful exegetes of Scripture (if we are going to make generalizations, which are dangerous). Your characterizations are a misrepresentation. I have many friends from both camps, and I loathe slander of either group.

 
At Saturday, April 26, 2008 8:25:00 AM, Blogger Rick said...

Hugh,

Not so.

If Cals were keen observers of Scripture they'd be able to both sides of an issue. They don't.

They are as thoroughly guilty of cherry-picking the New Testament and ignoring the Old Testament as any group could be.

You don't have to throw Augustine of Hippo's conclusions at the world and call it Scripture. But, that's what they do.

They hold on to the TULIP mumbo jumbo on one hand and then with the other hand "confess" to faith and works being the critera for salvation.

That, my friend, is hypocrisy at its most obvious.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home