Wednesday, May 21, 2008

"Evangelism" at Cape Coral

BRISTER TO TEACH "EVANGELISM" AT
FLOUNDERS' CHURCH IN FLORIDA

Timmy Brister recently writes on his blog --

"For the past couple of weeks, I have been spending the majority of my personal Bible study in the book of Acts, seeking to dig deeper into the mission of the early church in preparation for a summer-long teaching series in evangelism."

I assume this series will be taught at Tom Ascol's Flounders flagship church in Cape Coral, Florida. We know from Timmy's recent promotion of Pedobaptist books on "evangelism" by Pedos Packer and Kuiper that Timmy will most likely be teaching "evangelism" according to the Pedos.

The first fundamental principle of Pedo evangelism is that "regeneration precedes faith" (aka "born again before faith in Christ"). This is the line R. C. Sproul, John Frame, Ligon Duncan, Iain Murray, and many other modern Pedo preachers allege.

It is also the line promoted by Hybrid Calvinists in the Flounders, such as Tom Ascol, Bill Ascol, Tom Nettles, Mark Dever, Roy Hargrave, and others such as James White and some "Reformed Baptists" who have soaked their heads in Pedo theological buckets, especially those of Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul and Murray.

We also know that Ernest Reisinger, Founder of the Flounders, was of this same Pedo-mind on "evangelism" (see Today's Evangelism by Reisinger, pages 46, 47). The Flounders website also promotes the same Pedo view on "regeneration."

Therefore, what Brister most likely will be teaching is the same theory on "evangelism" that Ernest Reisinger would have taught when he was "reforming" the North Pompano, FL church, which no longer exists. This would certainly mean the exclusion of methods which are condemned by Reisinger in his book on Worship and by Murray in his writings -- no "decisionism," "altar calls," "invitations," "Sinner's Prayer," and that sort of "Arminianism." They would not want to get a false profession from one of the "non-elect" -- nor from even one of the "elect."

We hope Brister can somehow avoid at Ascol's Grace Baptist Church the sad effects of Pedo "evangelism" which resulted in eventual demise of the North Pompano church.

Good Luck!

11 Comments:

At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:19:00 PM, Blogger ide said...

Bob:

I hope Mr. Brister will emphasize the importance of preaching to bring about rebirth, that the Holy Spirit uses the word to create faith and life in a sinner (John 6.63; 1 Peter 1.23; James 1.18; cf. Ezekiel 37.1-10), and avoid Iain Murray's error in this quotation from The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths for a New Awakening published by Banner of Truth in 2005:

“What has been left unconsidered so far is the relation of conviction of sin to regeneration. There can be no clarity on this point without a right understanding of what regeneration means. For some, it means the change produced by scriptural truth as sinners believe it. In other words, accepting the truth is regarded as the means by which regeneration is accomplished. But this definition confuses two different things, while belief rests on truth it is no faith fat gives the capacity to believe. Faith is represented as ‘the gift of God’ just because the natural man, being at enmity to God, does not have that capacity (Eph. 2:8). The new birth has to precede the faith as its cause although it has no priority in time. We do not ‘see’ and then are reborn; we are reborn and then we ‘see’ (John 3:3). It is ‘the dead’ who hear the voice of the Son of God (John 5:25); there is a divine call that secures justification (Rom. 8:30). Thus Scripture represents regeneration as the immediate act of God; it is the giving of a new life, a being made alive from the dead, a new birth. Truth has no such creative power.”

In saying, “Thus Scripture represents regeneration as the immediate act of God; it is the giving of a new life, a being made alive from the dead, a new birth. Truth has no such creative power,” he presents an unbiblical view of truth. The word of God is creative in that the Spirit of God works in and through it to bring about new creation. God spoke and the world was created; He speaks and brings about new creation (salvation); this speech is in and through the preached word. This is the reason Paul can say, “For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel" (1 Corinthians 4.15). Paul preached the gospel to them and the Spirit worked in it to bring about faith and new life (regeneration/new birth/rebirth).

This is why preaching the gospel is essential: the Holy Spirit uses our words to create life (regeneration/new life/faith) and faith in those who are dead in trespasses and sins. If we do not speak speak the gospel, how shall they be born from above?

ide

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:20:00 PM, Blogger My Daily Bread said...

Dear Brother Bob:

I had another good chuckle when you wrote "soaked their heads in Pedo theological buckets." A word "fitly spoken" indeed.

You know Bob, these brothers ought to take their "quiet reformation" agenda and try it on the Pedo churches. Why don't they go into these churches pretending to believe to be "pedos" but then "quietly reform" them on baptism? Really, that would be easier, because they are only have that one issue to "reform," whereas in Southern Baptist churches they have to reform them on "regeneration," and on "elder rule," and on "gospel invitations."

Keep up the good work!

God bless

Stephen

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:11:00 PM, Blogger ide said...

Thomas Watson sums up nicely the biblical understanding of preaching on his treatment of “Effectual Calling in A Body of Divinity. Answering the question, What are the means of this effectual call?, Thomas says:

     “(I.) The ‘preaching of the word,’ which is the sounding of God’s silver trumpet in men’s ears. God speaks not by an oracle, he calls by his ministers. Samuel thought it had been the voice of Eli only that called him; but it was God’s voice. I Sam iii 6. So, perhaps, you think it is only the minister that speaks to you in the word, but it is God himself who speaks. Therefore Christ is said to speak to us from heaven. Heb xii 25. How does he speak but by his ministers? as a king speaks by his ambassadors. Know, that in every sermon preached, God calls to you; and to refuse the message we bring, is to refuse God himself.
    (2.) The other means of our effectual call is the Holy Spirit. The ministry of the word is the pipe or organ; the Spirit of God blowing in it, effectually changes men’s hearts. ‘While Peter spake, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word of God.’ Acts x 44. Ministers knock at the door of men's hearts, the Spirit comes with a key and opens the door. ‘A certain woman named Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened.’ Acts xvi 14.”

According to Watson, the Spirit works through the preached word to change the hearts of sinners. The preaching of the word is God speaking to sinners.

Watson had a high view of preaching that was common among the Puritans. How many of us think of our speech as the voice of God to sinners? How many of us think our words are tools in the hands of the Spirit to effect faith and new birth?

ide

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:47:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

Pedo View Denies Creative Power of the Word

ide said...


. . . Iain Murray's error in this quotation from The Old Evangelicalism:

“. . . Thus Scripture represents regeneration as the immediate act of God; it is the giving of a new life, a being made alive from the dead, a new birth. Truth has no such creative power.

. . . he [Murray] presents an unbiblical view of truth.


I agree -- Murray's view is an unbiblical view. Nowhere is the new birth represented to be enacted apart from the use of the Word or Gospel. The texts to which you refer are opposed to Murray's idea.

John 6:63 clearly shows that the Spirit is with the Word -- "they are spirit and they are life." The Word was inspired by the Spirit and quick and powerful, and it does not return void. It is not a dead letter.

Murray has said nothing more than what is found in the writings of both Shedd and Berkhof. In fact, his words are practically word-for-word from these Pedo writers. They both denied that the Spirit's creative power in, by, and with the Word is the instrumentality used in the new birth.

Their "logic" is based on their theory about the regeneration of infants which they imagine are "regenerated" by a "direct operation."

 
At Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:30:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

TIMMY BRISTER TEACHING EVANGELISM?

Now Bob, you know I have never banned anyone from posting on the Flyswatter! Unlike James White who doesn't allow comments from anyone or Tom Ascol who normally doesn't allow anonymous comments, The Flyswatter has been open to all from its beginning.

But Brother Bob, honestly, if you keep posting articles like this ... you're hurting me. I almost broke my hip when I read this, starting laughing, and fell off my chair!

Charles

 
At Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:05:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

WATSON CITED

ide said...


Thomas Watson sums up nicely the biblical understanding of preaching on his treatment of “Effectual Calling in A Body of Divinity. . . .

Thomas Watson and his fellow pastor, Stephen Charnock, were from an era which maintained the view of Effectual Calling stated in the Westminster Confession -- by BOTH Word and Spirit.

For Charnock's masterful work on the new birth, see:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/
charnock/instr_regen/
files/instr_regen.html

Both Shedd and Berkhof admit that the Puritans held a view which was abandoned by the later "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinists.

You may "hope Mr. Brister" will do as you say, but as long as he is lapping at the Pedo theological stagnant pool, you need not really get your hopes too high.

 
At Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:43:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

HURTING CHARLES?

Charles said . . .


But Brother Bob, honestly, if you keep posting articles like this ... you're hurting me. I almost broke my hip when I read this, starting laughing, and fell off my chair!

You can send the chiropractor's bill to Timmy Brister! It is hilarious that
Brister plans to teach Baptists "Evangelism According to the Pedos."

 
At Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:24:00 PM, Anonymous Jim R said...

Trying to figure out this Calvinism and Arminianism stuff in my head and stumbled across your site, would you say that you are Calvinistio or Arminian? It seems that you have a hard time with modern day Calvinist, but i also get the impression that you like old school Calvinist's.

if you are Calvinist then do you hold to the TULIP or just part of it? seems that some hold to 4 out of five, not sure about your view though.

If you are Arminian, which one are you closer too, Wesely or Arminius himself.

Thanks

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 2:17:00 PM, Anonymous Hank said...

It is too bad for you that you have not understood the distinction between human instrumentality and reformed soteriology. I would recommend that you get educated on the matter first, then speak. By speaking first from an uneducated perspective, you are only perpetuating your own ignorance which results in you being accountable for deceiving others.

Before you teach, you should learn. You’re only poisoning the well, and your sin is transparent in doing so. It’s just a suggestion. I don’t believe you can teach an old dog new tricks, but I trust that God can.

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 10:46:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

WHICH?

Jim R said...


Trying to figure out this Calvinism and Arminianism stuff in my head and stumbled across your site, would you say that you are Calvinistio or Arminian?

I have stated before that I am a Creedal Calvinist.
My purpose here is not to promote any theoretical system, however; it is to refute the aberrant "Reformed" version of Calvinism so prevalent on the Internet and as advocated by the Flounders, etc.

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 10:51:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

EVERY MAN TO HIS OWN "POISON"

Hank said...


Before you teach, you should learn. You’re only poisoning the well . . .

You did not offer any particulars about the "poison." Could you cite a "for instance"?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home