Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Murray's distortion of Spurgeon

A "SPURGEON" TO FORGET IS THE
"SPURGEON" PRESENTED BY MURRAY

We have often had occasion for many years to correct the distorted image of C. H. Spurgeon molded by the Pedobaptist, Iain Murray of the Banner of Truth.

Some of my writings about Murray's distortions may be read at Selected Writings of Bob Ross and some at the Pilgrim Publications' web site. Murray has probably "made a good living" off of Hybrid Calvinists thru marketing of his books which present a "Spurgeon" who never existed.

It is of course not surprising that Murray's "Reformed" theology on infant "regeneration" and the "born again before faith" heresy as to adult "regeneration" are both incompatible with the real Spurgeon's theology and evangelistic practices.

As a result of Mr. Murray's attachment to Pedcbaptism and the "Reformed" theology as presented by Louis Berkhof (a great
favorite of Murray), he has become a veritable fountain of misinformation, not only in the theological category, but biographically as well. As for Spurgeon, anything Murray writes about Spurgeon should be carefully sifted through Spurgeon's own writings and biographical sources and much of what Murray says will need to be discarded.

Murray alleges, for example, that C. H. Spurgeon's views were "moulded" by Alleine's Alarm to the Unconverted, when the fact is Spurgeon considered Joseph Alleine to be a "better preacher of the law than the gospel." Spurgeon even said the reading of Alleine's book was "like sitting at the foot of Sinai" and that his heart was hardened by the book. [For Spurgeon's various remarks on the book, see the Autobiography, Volume 1, pages 68, 80, 104; also see the sermon #531, The Warrant of Faith, page 531].

Mr. Murray obviously has an inclination for "nit-picking" of certain terminology which he is pleased to regard as "Arminian." In his book, The Forgotten Spurgeon, for example, Murray mixes Spurgeon's name in with his criticism of the expressions, "open your heart" and "decide for Christ," which according to Murray are expressions coined by "Arminianism" (pages 95).

Curiously, however, we do not find any revelation from Murray of the fact that Spurgeon frequently used these and similar "Arminian" expressions. You have to "watch" Mr. Murray for what he omits about Spurgeon which evidently he regards as not exactly embellishing to his "Reformed" theology.

Spurgeon has a sermon entitled, "An Open Heart for a Great Saviour," in which he says:

>>
"It is perfectly true that the work of salvation lies first and mainly in Jesus receiving sinners to himself, to pardon, to cleanse, to sanctify, to preserve, to make perfect; but, at the same time, the sinner also receives Christ; there is an act on the sinner's part by which, being constrained by divine grace, he openeth his heart to the admission of Jesus Christ, and Jesus enters in, and thenceforth dwells in the heart, and reigns and rules there. To a gracious readiness of heart to entertain the friend who knocks at the door, we are brought by God the Holy Ghost, and then he sups with us and we with him."
>>
[Metropolitan Tabernalce Pulpit, Volume 12, Year 1866, sermon #669, page 13].

In another appeal, Spurgeon said, "Oh I wish some of you would thus respond to my appeal this day! This thing is also from the Lord: it was he who gave me this message; it was he who brought you to hear it. Surely you will not be found fighting against God. Your heart is open to him; he sees the faintest desire that you have toward him. Breathe out your wish now, and say, 'My heart is before thee: take it.'" (MTP, Volume 37, #2231, page 599: An Urgent Request for An Immediate Answer).

On the matter of "decision," it might be well for Mr. Murray to consider Spurgeon's remarks in that sermon, "An Urgent Request for an Immediate Answer" (#2231). In this sermon, Spurgeon addresses his hearers, "But we are the more determined to press you for some DECISION" and "I pray that God's Spirit may lead you to an immediate DECISION" (pages 596, 599).

In the same sermon #2231, Spurgeon urges his hearers to "accept Christ" (page 16), which is another expression which we have sometimes seen classified by Murray and his disciples as being "Arminian."

Murray has little to no use for Evangelist D. L. Moody, whereas Spurgeon had a high regard for Moody, promoted Moody, defended Moody, had Moody preach at the Tabernacle, and approved of Moody's methods. Murray is a critic of any and all methods that call for the immediate acceptance of Christ as Saviour and the public confession of that faith. He tries to align Spurgeon against such methods, including the use of "inquiry rooms."

But the fact is, Spurgeon used the "inquiry room" and while like any sane Baptist preacher he would guard against unreasonable abuse of it, he never opposed its use, nor did he oppose "the invitation system," as has been falsely alleged.

"It is all very well to have an enquiry-room, and I have not a word to say against it"
(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 26, page 233).

And in the same volume on page 186 he says, "I do not condemn that action" (of going into an inquiry room).

In his Lectures to My Students, Second Series, page 190, he taught his ministerial students to "hold numerous enquirers meetings."

He emphasized a "reasonable" approach:

"Hope for the best, but in your highest excitements be reasonable. Enquiry-rooms are all very well, but if they lead to idle boastings they will grieve the Holy Spirit and work abounding evil" (The Sword and the Trowel, November 1879, page 505).

An Example

Here is just one example which is on record of the use of the inquiry rooom, an item of significance which I have yet to see mentioned by Mr. Murray in any of his writings:

Murray, to my knowledge, has never taken notice of this instance which reveals Spurgeon's practice -- an item from the March 1865 issue of Spurgeon's The Sword and the Trowel, page 128, which specifically relates to an "invitation" to the "unsaved" at the close of a service on the evening of February 6, 1865:

>>
Now came the direct reference to the UNSAVED. This was introduced by a most earnest and awakening address by Mr. Spurgeon, and was responded to in prayer by Mr. Stott and Mr. Varley. A hymn followed, commencing thus,

"Once a sinner near despair."

Mr. Teal and Mr. Burton then prayed, and Mr. Spurgeon closed with prayer.

INQUIRERS were then encouraged to retire to the lecture hall, where ministers and elders would be glad to converse with them; and many responded to the INVITATION.
>>

Spurgeon approved of these kinds of reasonable yet aggressive methods which tended to bring men to "decision" and open confession of Christ as Saviour.

Spurgeon said of D. L. Moody, for example --

"I believe that it is a great help in bringing people to DECISION when Mr. Moody asks those to STAND UP who wish to be prayed for. Anything that tends to separate you from the ungodly around you, is good for you. " (MTP, 1897, page 516).

The type of "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinist theology held by Mr. Murray was not what Spurgeon believed and practiced. Spurgeon did not confine himself to the type of "box" which Murray would like for his readers to think. In fact, in his own time, the Hybrid Calvinists such as Murray, branded Spurgeon an "Arminian," and that attitude is perpetuated in our time by those who use Spurgeon's name but distort his theology and evangelistic practice.

C. H. Spurgeon:

I believe, most firmly, in the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic, and I hold them to be very fraught with comfort to God�s people; but if any man shall say that the preaching of these is the whole of the preaching of the gospel, I am at issue with him.

Brethren, you may preach those doctrines as long as you like, and yet fail to preach the gospel; and I will go further, and affirm that some who have even denied those truths, to our great grief, have nevertheless been gospel preachers for all that, and God has saved souls by their ministry. . . .

Preach Christ, young man, if you want to win souls. Preach all the doctrines, too, for the building up of believers, but still the main business is to preach Jesus who came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. . . .

This simple truth, that "Jesus Christ has come to seek and to save that which is lost," and that "whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life," must be your jewel, your treasure, your life.

[Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 13, Year 1867, #786].

26 Comments:

At Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:33:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob:

Iain Murray has continued to maintain Spurgeon was against altar calls. On pages 62-62 of his book, The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths for a New Awakening, published by Banner of Truth in 2005, Murray wrote:

“For Spurgeon there was no way at all in which the necessity of the supernatural intervention of God lessens the urgency of human instrumentality. The work of the Spirit in regeneration, he writes, ‘might seem at first sight to put human instrumentality altogether out of the field; but on turning to Scripture we find nothing to justify such an inference.’ In speaking to pastors and students for the ministry he never failed to press this point:

“Impressed with a sense of their danger, give the ungodly no rest in their sins’ knock again and again at the door of their hearts, and knock as for life and death. Your solicitude, your earnestness, your anxiety, your travailing in birth for them God will bless to their arousing. God works mightily by this instrumentality. But our agony of soul must be real and not feigned, and therefore our hearts must be brought into sympathy with God. Low piety means low spiritual power.

“Given such words as the above, some Southern Baptists today are incredulous at the statement that Spurgeon never added to his preaching an ‘appeal’ or ‘altar call’ for an immediate public decision on the part of individuals who wished to become Christians. Why he did not do so should be clear from what he believed on regeneration. He did not regard the practice as an evangelistic aid, but rather as calculated to confuse the meaning of conversion. He knew that receiving Christ is never without a change of nature (regeneration) and such a change cannot be affected by any physical action such as asking a person to come to the front. ‘You must never divide the renewing of the Holy Spirit from the pardon of sin…The work of regeneration and the act of faith which brings justification to the sinner are simultaneous, and must in the nature of the case always be so.’ If it be said that the purpose of the public invitation is only to allow individuals to confess that they have received Christ, that is to concede that it is no part of becoming a Christian and it should not be treated as though it were. The public witness that marks a Christian is better in another context. The ‘public decision’ as a means to number converts Spurgeon regarded as utterly untrustworthy.”

In footnote 44 on page 64, he says:

“‘Some of the most glaring sinners known to me were once members of a church; and were, as I believe, led to make a profession by undue pressure….I am weary of this public bagging, this counting of unhatched chickens, this exhibition of doubtful spoils.’ The Soul-Winner, p. 15. Further on this subject, see D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971), ‘Calling for Decisions’, pp. 265-82. On the basis of one statement, it is alleged that Spurgeon did encourage the altar call, but the claim clearly rests on a misinterpretation of the words. It was reported (Sword and the Trowel, 1865, p. 70):
‘Spurgeon earnestly exhorted those who had accepted Christ as their Saviour to come forward amongst his people.’ This refers not to walking the aisles but to those who were already believers and not yet committed to churches.

“It has also been argued that the reason Spurgeon did not give a ‘public appeal’ was that the architecture of the Metropolitan Tabernacle ‘did not lend itself to hundreds coming forward to an invitation to receive Christ’. But it was Spurgeon principally who determined the shape of his building, not to speak of the multitudes of other places where he preached, including the open-air, where no such appeal was ever given! Dealing with enquirers was a different matter, which he encouraged, although he opposed making the ‘enquiry room’ an integral part of evangelism.”

ide

 
At Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:34:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob:

In the context of decisions for Christ quoted in my previous comment, Murray also addresses the issue of the relationship of regeneration and faith, saying “He [Spurgeon] knew that receiving Christ is never without a change of nature (regeneration) and such a change cannot be affected by any physical action such as asking a person to come to the front. ‘You must never divide the renewing of the Holy Spirit from the pardon of sin…The work of regeneration and the act of faith which brings justification to the sinner are simultaneous, and must in the nature of the case always be so’” (p. 64). A page later he writes, “In some sermons, as we have seen, Spurgeon made clear the relationship between regeneration and faith, while in others he did not. He was often content to say that faith ‘occurs at the same time as the new birth’” (p. 65).

Murray thus acknowledges Spurgeon taught that regeneration and faith are “simultaneous” and that faith “occurs at the same time as the new birth” yet says that Spurgeon was less than precise in using such terminology (“In some sermons, as we have seen, Spurgeon made clear the relationship between regeneration and faith, while in others he did not. He was often content to say that faith ‘occurs at the same time as the new birth’” -- italics mine).

Is simultaneous, then, insufficient to explain the relationship of regeneration/rebirth and faith? I believe Spurgeon used "simultaneous" and "occurs at the same time" because this represented his conviction concerning the biblical teaching on the relationship of regeneration and faith.

ide

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:25:00 AM, Blogger My Daily Bread said...

Amen!

God bless

Stephen

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:34:00 AM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

MURRAY'S MISCHIEF

Anonymous said...


Iain Murray has continued to maintain Spurgeon was against altar calls.

You probably noticed that the primary "material" in Murray's writings consists of his spin or his own "interpretations" of a few isolated remarks by Spurgeon, which when taken in context, are not in accord with Murray's evident attempt to make Spurgeon a Hybrid Calvinist.

I will have more to say about Murray in a post which is forthcoming.

We should always remember that Murray is a PEDOBAPTIST who believes in "born again before faith," and he "reads" Spurgeon through those "glasses." But I have yet to ever read where Spurgeon said a sinner is born again before faith in Jesus Christ.

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:53:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Bob:

In your typical fashion, you did not address ide's assertion that "Iain Murray has continued to maintain Spurgeon was against altar calls." "ide" wrote a quite lengthy section on Murray's argument for maintaining, yet in your response, you only addressed Spurgeon not being a "hybrid Calvinist" (holding to born-agan-before-faith). This had absolutely nothing to do with "ide"'s argument. You totally dodged his whole point!
To some, Bob, this may look like you were made to look very bad, ranting on and on about this and that, yet when engaged in an intelligent manner, you bailed out.
Just some words of advice, my brother. Since it seems that the readership of your palabber on this blog may number less than
the number of points of Calvinism you claim to hold to, you may want to take very opportunity you can for thoughtful dialogue.

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:05:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Charles:

Please tell me why my last comment was not approved.
Thanks.

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:13:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Bob and Charles:

The very thing you accuse others of, you now do yourselves. My comment was submiited and not approved, apparently because it was challenging you on your position. Yet another reason why it appears that your readership is minimal at best. You won't post people's comments who don't agree with you!
Have fun with your two-man blog, gents!

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:23:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Mark, Hello!

You asked, Charles:

Please tell me why my last comment was not approved.
Thanks.


Huh?

None of your comments have not been "approved." Remember, patience is a fruit of the Spirit, my friend. Unlike James White, Tom Ascol and others, I don't sit in front of a keyboard all day reading comments. Oh, I forgot, Brother James doesn't allow anyone to comment on his blog. And Brother Tom doesn't allow anonymous comments for the most part.

My point is, it may take a few hours or days or longer for comments to show up.

Charles

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:10:00 PM, Blogger ide said...

Mark:

I do not think you were fair in your remark to Bob, saying he did not answer the citation from Murray. He did answer, saying Murray misinterpretated isolated statement from Spurgeon's writings:

"You probably noticed that the primary "material" in Murray's writings consists of his spin or his own "interpretations" of a few isolated remarks by Spurgeon, which when taken in context, are not in accord with Murray's evident attempt to make Spurgeon a Hybrid Calvinist."

His article published today, Spurgeon's "Ordo Salutis" vs Murray's, addresses my second comment in this thread in which I raised the issue of the relationship of faith and rebirth, namely, whether simultaneous means simultaneous.

Concerning comments in moderation, I can attest that approval may take a day or two, for some of mine have taken that amount of time to appear. While I, too, wish Charles could approve them more frequently, I accept that he has other priorities that keep him from this task.

ide

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:27:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

REPLY TO MARK

Mark said...


In your typical fashion, you did not address ide's assertion that "Iain Murray has continued to maintain Spurgeon was against altar calls."

I have addressed Iain Murray's every argument against "altar calls" and "invitations," and my articles may be consulted at these websites:

http://writingsofbobross.tripod.com/1toc1.html

http://www.pilgrimpubl
ications.com/invite1.htm


What Murray "continues" to "maintain" about Spurgeon is his own problem. From time to time, we devote some space to showing how he misrepresents. He will "die trying" to make Spurgeon guilty of all the malarkey he has written about him.

As for the number in our reading audience, Charles and I like to read one another's comments, and we don't mind if others tune in. You are welcome any time.

I just wish Charles did not have to be away so much. I would love to read more of his pithy and entertaining replies. One Charles comment is moe interesting than a hundred Hybrid Calvinist blogs.

 
At Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:16:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

TO MARK AGAIN

Mark said...


Bob and Charles:

You won't post people's comments who don't agree with you!


I forgive you, Mark, for you know not what you say. You can't find anyone who has submitted posts and they were not posted.

I assume you are "new" to this blog, and that would explain why you jumped to confusion. Charles does not just "hang out" and wait for comments, as he has other things to do, which sometimes takes him away for days at a time. I know this very well, for I actually considered the possibility that he had died around the first of the year, he was quiet for so long!

I personally do not see any comments until Charles puts them on the blog. I am only able to post my own articles and comments since I have been given that access.

If you wish to directly address something to me, you can get my email on my profile. I will be glad to copy your comment, include it in a post on this blog, and make my reply.

BTW, awhile back I wrote a reply to Mr. Murray's
"Invitation" booklet, and you may read it here:

http://writingsofbobross.tripod.com/0055.htm

IAIN MURRAY'S
MURKY MIRAGE
ON PUBLIC INVITATIONS
[06/11/04]

 
At Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:30:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Gentlemen, please forgive me for not being familiar with the wait time for comment postings.

Ide:

I am sorry, brother, but Bob did NOT respond directly to your assertion about Murray and Spurgeon and altar calls. He may have asserted something general about Murray's tendencies when quoting Spurgeon, but he did NOT address the issue of altar calls on the part of the Prince of Preachers. And he certainly did not address the issue of Spurgeon and altar calls at all in the succeeding "post."

Bob:

You have never given a convincing argument for your position that Spurgeon used altar calls. If you want to say that the Sword and Trowel's report of "Spurgeon earnestly exhorted those who had accepted Christ as their Saviour to come forward amongst his people" (1865, p. 70) is tantamount to issuing an altar call for salvation, this is quite flimsy evidence indeed. You also need to interact with "ide"'s point that Murray explained the above quote as "This refers not to walking the aisles but to those who were already believers and not yet committed to churches." What say ye? On this point, we do not know. My point still stands that what you produce is a lot of palabber and an end run around the real subject, but any substantial interaction and producing of evidence to support your assertion is glaringly absent.
Perhaps Charles is impressed and amused with your drivel, my friend, but the flyswatter has hardly taken the blogosphere by storm. Why, many of your lengthiest "posts" have "zero" comments. This is quite telling.
Just some words of advice, dear brother: Substance over rhetoric (clever as that rhetoric may be) can only help your cause.
However, I realize you may be content simply to share giggles back and forth with your little friend, Charles. If that floats your boat, then I suppose no substance is necessary, then, is it?

 
At Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:58:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

REPLY TO MARK ON
SPURGEON & ALTAR CALLS

Mark said...


If you want to say that the Sword and Trowel's report of "Spurgeon earnestly exhorted those who had accepted Christ as their Saviour to come forward amongst his people" (1865, p. 70) is tantamount to issuing an altar call for salvation, this is quite flimsy evidence indeed.

I recently gave the following in one of my posts, and Iain Murray, to my knowledge, has never taken notice of this instance which reveals Spurgeon's practice -- an item from the March 1865 issue of Spurgeon's The Sword and the Trowel, page 128, which specifically relates to an "invitation" to the "unsaved" at the close of a service on the evening of February 6, 1865:

>>
Now came the direct reference to the UNSAVED. This was introduced by a most earnest and awakening address by Mr. Spurgeon, and was responded to in prayer by Mr. Stott and Mr. Varley.

A hymn followed, commencing thus,

"Once a sinner near despair."

Mr. Teal and Mr. Burton then prayed, and Mr. Spurgeon closed with prayer. INQUIRERS were then encouraged to retire to the lecture hall, where ministers and elders would be glad to converse with them; and many responded to the INVITATION.
>>

Spurgeon approved of these kinds of reasonable yet aggressive methods which tended to bring men to "decision" and open confession of Christ as Saviour.

Spurgeon said of D. L. Moody, for example --

"I believe that it is a great help in bringing people to DECISION when Mr. Moody asks those to STAND UP who wish to be prayed for. Anything that tends to separate you from the ungodly around you, is good for you." (MTP, 1897, page 516).

Such methods are usually lumped by the Anti-Invitationists as an "Altar Call." They may call it what they wish, it doesn't matter -- altar call, invitation,
an appeal, inquiry room,
or whatever -- the point is, Spurgeon urged an immediate faith-decision and "anything" reasonable as a method of facilitating it was OK by him.

MARK said:
You also need to interact with "ide"'s point that Murray explained the above quote as "This refers not to walking the aisles but to those who were already believers and not yet committed to churches."

BOB'S reply:

Here is the quotation from Spurgeon's magazine:

>>
"C. H. Spurgeon earnestly exhorted those who had accepted Christ as their Saviour to come forward amongst his people and avow their attachment to His person and name. Words of kindly encouragement and of loving persuasiveness, were addressed to the timid and retiring ones, who feared to avow themselves to be the Lord's lest they should fall back into sin and dishonor His name. This was followed by an appeal to those who had confessed the name of Jesus — an appeal of so stirring and searching a nature, that many must have felt constrained to say, 'Lord what wilt thou have me to do?' Prayer for more earnest living, abiding, practical godliness, followed this address." — The Sword and The Trowel 1865, pg. 70.

Now, let's "just suppose" --

Suppose unbelieving John Doe was sitting there, but after hearing Spurgeon's stirring "appeal," he became a believer. Would it have been within the scope of Spurgeon's urging for John Doe to "come forward"?

Here is another instance from The Sword and The Trowel of March, 1865, page 128 -- never mentioned by Iain Murray. It has all the elements of a reasonable
"invitation" -- (1) Address to the unsaved; (2) Prayer;
(3) Encouragement to respond.

If Iain Murray ever held a service like this in all his life, it would have only been in a nightmare!

>>
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Barnard presented the incense of praise. Mr. Spurgeon then gave out the hymn, commencing with —

"Just as I am, Without one plea."

This was a prelude to confession of sin, which, after a silent confession of two or three minutes of each for himself, was offered in the name of all by Mr. Clark. Some verses of the hymn, "I will praise Thee every day," were then sung, after which petitions for the revival of the Churches were presented by Mr. Warren and Mr. Offord: those of the latter were preceded by a touching and powerful appeal to the hearts of believers.

Now came the direct reference to the UNSAVED.

This was introduced by a most earnest and awakening address by Mr. Spurgeon, and was responded to in prayer by Mr. Stott and Mr. Varley. A hymn followed, commencing thus,

"Once a sinner near despair."

Mr. Teal and Mr. Burton then prayed, and Mr. Spurgeon closed with prayer. INQUIRERS were then encouraged to retire to the lecture hall, where ministers and elders would be glad to converse with them; and many responded to the INVITATION.

This was one of the most sober, the most impressive, and, we should judge, the most effective meetings we have ever witnessed.
>>

If you are asking for particular or exact "step-by-step" method as an "altar call," then you are begging the question. Spurgeon's practice had all the basic elements of a normal Baptist invitation, while the exact procedures or format would vary somewhat.

Murray never practiced anything like Spurgeon practiced in all his born days. He was, with Martin Lloyd-Jones, an advocate of the "Pastor's Office System" -- stand in line outside the Pastor's Office and wait your turn to be interviewed.

 
At Thursday, May 22, 2008 8:50:00 PM, Blogger ide said...

THE SWORD AND THE TROWEL ONLINE

Those wishing to check The Sword and the Trowel references for themselves will find the complete works online at God Rule's.Net. Scroll down until you reach THE SWORD AND THE TROWEL header.

ide

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 12:17:00 AM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

THE SWORD AND
THE TROWEL

ide said...


THE SWORD AND THE TROWEL ONLINE

Those wishing to check The Sword and the Trowel references for themselves will find the complete works online at God Rule's.Net. Scroll down until you reach THE SWORD AND THE TROWEL header.


Actually, these are collections of Spurgeon's primary writings in the magazine, but do not include most of his book reviews and a few other items.

We are still in the process of publishing these, and so far are up thru the year 1886. I am currently working on the years 1887 and 1888 to form a combined volume #9, and hope to have it published before long.

Thank you for posting this link to the volumes which are in print and are also now on the Internet.

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 12:23:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,

You write: "the flyswatter has hardly taken the blogosphere by storm. Why, many of your lengthiest "posts" have "zero" comments. This is quite telling."

What does it tell, Mark? Please inform us.

I for one very much enjoy reading this blog. I have its feed in my reader and always check the latest post, and have done so for almost 2 years, I think. Nonetheless, I can count on my hand the times I've commented here.

So what does that tell us, Mark? Please inform us. We're all ears.


Brothers Bob & Charles,

I find it interesting that those who so often reject "numbers" when it comes to Church attendance, baptisms, invitational calls, etc. magically morph in staking their entire argument on "numbers" when it comes to blog visits or "numbers" of people commenting. With Mark, I have to say "This is quite telling."

Grace, guys. keep up the good work. With that, I am...

Peter

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 11:55:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Mark, Hello!

You wrote, the flyswatter has hardly taken the blogosphere by storm. Why, many of your lengthiest "posts" have "zero" comments. This is quite telling.

Yes, it is indeed "quite telling."

Obviously you are unaware that many of the Reformed bloggers are involved in an active boycott of The Flyswatter. Timmy Brister has visited other blogs and told them not to visit or post on The Flyswatter. Almost all the Reformed bloggers have posted here at one time or another. But once they see enough truth to realize that Ascol and friends have deceived them it becomes easier to just avoid The Flyswatter than look foolish to their friends.

Reformed bloggers like Timmy can dish it out but they can't take it! They love to start a good theological smack-down (or “dialog” as they call it) but when they get a good swat from The Flyswatter they go crying to their theological mommies and daddies. They make fun and use sarcasm to its fullest on their blogs but when it’s used on them then suddenly it’s not funny anymore. Suddenly it becomes downright unchristian.

Take James White for instance. He loves to point out how ignorant (in his mind) his opponents are but as soon as I pointed out on some blogs that his "doctorate" is from an unaccredited correspondence school then my comments got deleted! And James does not allow any comments on his blog. How’s that for “taking the blogosphere by storm.”

Bob Ross and I have not and will not yield to the Reformed bloggers. Someone has to stand up to bullies.

So no, they don't post here very much. But I know for a fact that many of them visit here quite frequently. And that’s perfectly fine.

Charles

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 12:04:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Quite simply, not much posting probably means:
(1) people read the flyswatter and conclude what they read is not worth commenting on (due, perhaps, to the lack of substance), or:
(2) not many people even bother to read it.

After all, it has been boycotted by the hybrids and still there are few comments. When there are little to no comments from those of the non-boycott persuasion, what else are we to conclude?

It is amusing, however, to see two grown men giggling like little girls back and forth. So keep up the entertainment, gentlemen! It is a great diversion from the more serious things of life.

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 12:06:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

btw, Bob:
"encouragement to respond" does not equal "altar call."

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 12:48:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Mark, Hello!

You wrote, When there are little to no comments from those of the non-boycott persuasion, what else are we to conclude?

In case you haven't noticed, most of the Baptist bloggers who are interested in these issues are Reformed.

I'm glad, Mark, that you are able to post if you want, aren't you? After all, James White will not let you comment on his blog. Wonder what he is afraid of?

Charles

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 4:57:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

TO QUOTE CHARLES:
HUH?


Mark said...
btw, Bob:
"encouragement to respond" does not equal "altar call."

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 5:37:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

BOYCOTTING THE
DREADED "FLYSWATTER"

Charles said:


. . . many of the Reformed bloggers are involved in an active boycott of The Flyswatter.

You have a very unique blog, Charles --

So far as I know, yours is the only blog in the Blogosphere which has merited the "boycott" of the Hybrid Calvinists such as Gene Bridges, Timmy Brister, iMonkey, and others who are just "bored stiff" by all the swatting that goes on here.

And as for those boycotters, the question is, "Who cares?" Does anyone really think we are here to get their "seal of approval"?

The primary purpose of this blog -- as Charles has stated from the beginning -- is to "swat" the Reformed flies for Baptists who may have an interest in a point of view on theological issues which do not begin and end with the Pedobaptist word "Reformed."

Of course, boycotting is not a novelty with me. Campbellites, Hardshells, King James Onlys, Pretheads, Landmarkers, Oneites, Appallingists, and other assorted "defenders of the faith" have targeted me with their "Don't Read Ross" picketing.

It's almost as bothersome as dandruff!

 
At Friday, May 23, 2008 6:23:00 PM, Blogger ide said...

I, too, have read The Calvinist Flyswatter for about two years and have it in my RSS Feed, yet have not posted on it until recently. (It is only recently that I began to comment on blogs, though I read many, including Peter's.) I appreciate Bob's articles and comments, for he has a wealth of knowledge and has a keen ability to dissect and address a variety of issues in an articulate manner. This is the first blog I check when logging onto the internet.

I also believe Spurgeon's thought and practices have been well-defended through this blog by the ample documentation provided by Bob and Charles.

Thank you, Bob and Charles, for all your work.

ide

 
At Sunday, May 25, 2008 2:29:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Mark,

Perhaps you missed what I left for you; instead, you follow up what I wrote with: "When there are little to no comments from those of the non-boycott persuasion, what else are we to conclude?"

I suggest you actually read what I wrote, as well now as Ide, who echoes virtually the same point in his experience that I made about mine.

If most bloggers who've been at this a while got a comment from every one who logged on it would be virtually impossible to read them all, much less respond back.
Your reasoning is simply flawed.

Given such, you may be much better off, it seems to me, to go silent yourself until you can make a more valid contribution, instead of rambling on about a nonsensical "number of comments" criteria.

Grace this day. With that, I am...

Peter

 
At Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:02:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Mr. Lumpkins:

Thank you so much for exhorting me to actually read what you wrote (as if I did not). You asked what this tells us, and I responded. I don't know how I could have made it any more clear that I was responding to your challenge. I am glad that you, for one, enjoy the school-girl type of giggling that goes on back and forth between Charles and Bob, and the lack of substance on this blog. I am sure the three of you (with the addition, perhaps, of "ide" now) will be interested in the experiment I have suggested in the comment section of the post on Saturday, May 24.
One other thing, Mr. Lumpkins: perhaps you should allow your signature line "I am" to be used only by those who actually have legitimate claim to the title of deity (Ex 3:14, Jn 8:58, et al). Just a thought.

 
At Wednesday, May 28, 2008 5:28:00 PM, Blogger Bob L. Ross said...

GIGGLING

Mark said . . .


I am glad that you, for one, enjoy the school-girl type of giggling that goes on back and forth between Charles and Bob, and the lack of substance on this blog.

Sorry, Mark, but the remarks you often make just give me the giggles! I suppose they must do the same for Charles.

As long as you are around, I don't suppose Charles and I will be able to stop the giggling!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home