Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Spurgeon vs. Tom Ascol

DO YOU SUPPOSE SPURGEON WOULD
BE WELCOME IN ASCOL'S PULPIT?

In an earlier post, I took note of Tom Ascol's comment on his blog where Tom criticized Steven Gaines, asking --

"Where is there any record of any apostle going up to a person, stranger or not and saying, 'Jesus died for you?"

While Tom constantly uses an art drawing of C. H. Spurgeon on his website, Tom's above question simply reveals how the head of the Flounders is once again found to be at odds with Spurgeon.

Here's a quote from Spurgeon's sermon, "Immeasurable Love," which clearly shows that Spurgeon had no problem with urging "a" sinner to believe "Jesus died for you."

Spurgeon:

See, then, the love of God in putting it in so plainly—so easy a way. Oh, you broken, crushed and despairing sinner, you cannot work, but can you not believe that which is true? You cannot sigh, you can not cry. You cannot melt your stony heart, but can you not believe that Jesus died for you and that He can change that heart of yours and make you a new creature? If you can believe this, then trust in Jesus to do so and you are saved, for he that believes in Him is justified! “He that believes in Him has everlasting life.” He is a saved man! His sins are forgiven! Let him go his way in peace and sin no more! -- Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 31, Year 1885, pages 391, 392

It is rather paradoxical that Ascol claims that his Hybrid Calvinist sect is trying to "recover" the allegedly "lost" Gospel yet he probably has this very sermon in his library, but has not yet "recovered" the Gospel as preached by Spurgeon wherein Spurgeon appeals to "a" sinner to believe that "Jesus died for you."

Just rack up another case of Spurgeon vs the Flounders. Do you suppose Ascol would allow Spurgeon to preach that at the Flounders church in Cape Coral? If so, it would probably be a "first" in that church!

12 Comments:

At Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:44:00 AM, Anonymous Hugh D said...

Brother Bob,

In fairness to Ascol, who I do not know very much about, after that quote of his you posted, he wrote:

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

This quote encaspulates the content, spirit and belief of the Spurgeon quote you listed. Sure Spurgeon used wording, which Ascol was saying is wrong. But Spurgeon was much more nuanced than the type of evangelism that grew of the Second Great Awakening, which Gaines represents. So I think it is appropriate the way Spurgeon appealed to sinners, leading them to believe and repent, all the while knowing that they could not change their "stony heart". So I found myself agreeing with the Spurgeon quote and Ascol, because I think they both being monergists are on the same page......

[ with exception of the "born again before you believe thing" which you keep referring to, of which controversy I am still trying to figure out the details ]

 
At Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:35:00 AM, Blogger peter lumpkins said...

Brother Bob,

I am humbled you chose a quote from me to profile...

Also, I'm one with you pertaining to Founders' critique toward Steve Gaines, one of many SBC large Church Pastors--Hunt, Vines, Price, Rogers, Welch among others--hounded by Baptist Calvinists.

Admittedly, sometimes they do not, with precision, get their opposition fully correct. Which one among us is perfect in our critiques, cast the first stone is something similar to what I've read elsewhere.

Yet, as you pointed out, why that imprecision--or even flat out being incorrect about an alternate position--necessarily reduces to "dishonesty" is moral over-reach.

Why can't it just be said "While I understand Pastor So and So's concerns he's raised about the Calvinist's position, I have to disagree that's his point is well taken. Here's why..."?

Why degrade it to questioning someone's morals in deceiving others about knowledge--in this case, of Calvinism--when it more fits one's mistake for deficiency of knowledge? My present post attempts to flesh this out.

Grace to you, Brothers Bob and Charles. With that, I am...

Peter

 
At Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:11:00 AM, Blogger Rick said...

Your quote of Spurgeon "...he who believes...has everlasting life" is enough information to validate both the Old Testament and the New Testament as having nothing to do with Limited Atonement. It also clearly demonstrates that Spurgeon was no follower of the TULIP formula. If he was he wouldn't have made such a comment.

 
At Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:35:00 AM, Blogger My Daily Bread said...

Dear Brother Ross:

I left a comment in the Founders blog in which I agreed that there is no example where apostles and evangelists went out telling people that Christ died for every sinner. I still stand by that statement. I even mentioned how the Old Baptists of the 17th century were saying the same thing, saying that there is no warrant for telling any particular unbeliever that Christ for sure died for him.

Did not Spurgeon believe that Christ died for only some sinners and not all of them?

Now, I wish to clarify a little.

Jesus did tell some people that he would did for them specifically. In the institution of the Lord's Supper Jesus said - "this is my blood of the New Covenant which is SHED FOR YOU..."

But, he said this to his disciples, did he not? And, did he not say to them that he would shed this blood for "many" rather than for everyone?

Yours in Christ,

Stephen

 
At Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:19:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Brother Bob, Hello!

I can think of someone else who would probably not be welcome in Ascol's pulpit: D.L. Moody.

The Flounders seem to have a disdain for Moody, despite the fact that Spurgeon loved Moody and had him preach for him in London. Also, if I remember correctly, didn't Boyce have Moody come and preach at Southern Seminary?

Since Spurgeon and Boyce loved Moody so much, you would think that Ascol would want to emulate "The Founders" and post some Moody sermons on Founders.org, or at least print a sermon or two of Moody's in the "Founders so-called Journal".

Charles

 
At Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:09:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

"BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH"?

Hugh D said...


[ with exception of the "born again before you believe thing" which you keep referring to, of which controversy I am still trying to figure out the details ]

You may read about this on the Flyswatter at the following:

Regeneration - Calvinism

http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/bob-ross-regeneration-calv_114261719496018943.html

 
At Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:17:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

"Monergists"

Hugh D said...


So I found myself agreeing with the Spurgeon quote and Ascol, because I think they both being monergists are on the same page......

Every who believes in the New Birth is a
"monergist."

But "monergism" does not mean that "regeneration" (new birth) takes place before a person is brought to faith in Jesus Christ by means of the Word as applied by the Holy Spirit.

The "monergism" so prevalent on the Internet is Hybrid Calvinism. It is not found in the Confessions of faith. It arose from the Pedobaptists who believed that their babies get "regenerated" either before they are born and shortly thereafter.

You will find refutations of this heresy in our Archives.

 
At Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:28:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

NOT FOUND IN THE
BIBLE?

My Daily Bread said...

I left a comment in the Founders blog in which I agreed that there is no example where apostles and evangelists went out telling people that Christ died for every sinner.

That is a very poor hermeneutic.

Can you find where an apostle referred to "monergism," "the regulative principle," "recovering the gospel," "lordship salvation," "limited atonement," "unconditional election," "inerrancy of scripture," and such expressions?

You might disprove most anything you choose if you used this "silence" hermeneutic.

 
At Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:36:00 PM, Blogger My Daily Bread said...

Dear Brother Bob:

I did not know you did not share the view of Spurgeon and the confessions regarding Christ dying only for the elect. Sorry.

About the silence argument.

First, it is scriptural. Did not the writer of Hebrews used it when he said - "to which of the angels said he at any time - 'you are my son'?"

Second, I was not arguing that the argument from silence is always a valid argument.

Third, I was trying to say that we should, as much as possible, give invitations after the manner of the apostles, and to some degree at least, this would include how they did not give invitations, don't you think?

God bless

Stephen

 
At Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:35:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

MY VIEW

My Daily Bread said...


I did not know you did not share the view of Spurgeon and the confessions regarding Christ dying only for the elect. Sorry.

Well, I was not aware that I did not share the views of Spurgeon and the confessions. Perhaps I was not very clear in what I presented.

The question I was answering had to do with what Spurgeon believed, and that is what I tried to present. I was not attempting to present my view at all.

But as for my view, I am content to simply believe that the Atonement will utlimately redeem all who have already believed, and it will redeem all who will yet believe in the future. I do not believe it will redeem those who die as unbelievers.

Yet on the basis of Mark 16:15, 16, I believe we are commissioned to preach the Gospel to EVERY creature on the basis that every single one of them could be and will be saved if they believe on Christ.

It makes no sense to me to offer every creature something which is beyond possibility, sorta like getting one of those "You Are a Winner of a Million Dollars" letters which are as empty as political promises.

I ask you, my Brother, if every creature who hears the Gospel from this day forward believed on Christ, would the Atonement avail for them, or is it so "limited" that only a few of them would receive the benefits thereof?

 
At Friday, April 25, 2008 1:08:00 AM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

SILENCE ARGUMENT

My Daily Bread said...


About the silence argument.

First, it is scriptural. Did not the writer of Hebrews used it when he said - "to which of the angels said he at any time - 'you are my son'?"


I just can't see that verse as establishing the use of an argument from silence. It seems to me more of an argument from what is actually said in Psalms.

I was trying to say that we should, as much as possible, give invitations after the manner of the apostles, and to some degree at least, this would include how they did not give invitations, don't you think?

I am not much inclined toward emulating what is regarded by some to be "examples" or "patterns," and this seems to be fall into that category. I can't see that we should go by "what the Bible does not say."

What was done (or not done) by some of the inspired prophets and apostles could hardly be intended for us to emulate. Where would such begin and end? Shall we, for instance, have as many wives as some of the Old Testament saints? Shall we go about naked like Isaiah? Shall we take a vow like Paul? Shall we adopt eating locusts and honey like John? Shall we not have church buildings, hymnbooks, choirs, or pianos?

 
At Friday, April 25, 2008 10:33:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

ANOTHER QUOTE
FROM SPURGEON


I was reading again Spurgeon's great sermon, "Come and Welcome," and here is now he closed it out:

>>
Come, soul — is there not one at least that God shall give me this day for my hire — not one? May I not take one of you by the hand, some poor sinning erring brother? Come, brother let us go together and drink. O may the Holy Ghost incline you. Take it my brother.

See on that bloody tree Jesus hangs; behold he pays his life a ransom FOR YOUR SINS and mine. Believe on him, trust him, commit your soul to him and be saved. Will you not say in your soul --

"Just as I am
without one plea
But that thy blood was
shed for me
And that thou bid'st
me come to thee,
O lamb of God I come,
I come?"

--New Park Street Pulpit, Volum 5, page 440.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home