"We have met the enemy"
JOEL OSTEEN -- IS HE THE ENEMY? or,IS IT THE FLOUNDERS THEMSELVES?
The favorite "whipping boy" of the Flounders and other Hybrid Calvinists is Joel Osteen.
The latest swipe at Joel which I have read on the Internet by a Flounders-Friendly preacher is what appears to be a complaint. The critic complains that Joel gets paid more money from his books than the royalties paid for "every book authored by (John) MacArthur, (R. C.) Sproul, (John) Piper, (C. J.) Mahaney, (Alistair) Begg, (James) Boice, (Ligon) Duncan, etc."
What a shame! Shame on you, Joel!
I seem to recall that Spurgeon's sermons also sold more than the sermons published by other London preachers during his liftetime, and some critics complained about that, too. But that's not all that Joel and Spurgeon apparently have in common.
Would you believe -- Joel apparently follows Spurgeon more closely in seeking lost souls than Tom Ascol, Timmy Brister, Tom Nettles, Al Mohler, James White, Michael Horton or any of the others who have no better use for their time than to criticize Joel?
Rather than targeting Joel Osteen as the "enemy" -- which is common with Flounders and several other Hybrid Calvinists -- and, rather than calling upon the Southern Baptist Convention to pass a "repentance" Resolution at its next session, shouldn't Tom Ascol, Timmy Brister, and those who are card-carrying Flounders-Friendlies be first and foremost concerned about taking care of their own vineyard and mending their own fences?
IAIN MURRAY, the Grandfather of the Flounders Co. -- which is now headed by Tom Ascol of sunny Cape Coral, Florida, the "Mecca" of Floundersism -- has made the following evaluation of the Reformed "resurgents" and "reformers" such as the Flounders-Friendlies --
"It would appear that the priority which soul-winning had in Spurgeon's ministry is not commonly seen to be our priority. The revival of doctrine has scarcely been matched by a revival of evangelism" (Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, page xiv).
One of the elements in Spurgeon's mnistry which is sadly missing and "not commonly seen" in the "revival of doctrine" to which Murray refers is -- the "Sinner's Prayer" as it was used by Spurgeon in evangelism.
Iain Murray says that Spurgeon would "counsel men how to seek Christ" thru praying the Sinner's Prayer (see second edition of The Forgotten Spurgeon, page 101, or the first edition, page 107).
In fact, Murray even says that Spurgeon "not only exhorted sinners, he frequently directed them," and he uses some of the sermon in which Spurgeon says --
"Many of you are saved. I beseech you intercede for those who are not saved. Oh, that the unconverted among you may be moved to pray. Before you leave this place, breathe an earnest prayer to God, saying, 'God be merciful to me a sinner. Lord, I need to be saved. Save me. I call upon Your name.' Join with me in prayer at this moment, I entreat you. Join with me while I put words into your mouths and speak them on your behalf" (ibid, page 101, The Forgotten Spurgeon; Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 35, Year 1889, pages 239, 240).
In another sermon by Spurgeon, on Psalm 51:2, he says it is "so suitable for the sinner" and "is precisely the way in which an unconverted man ought to pray, just the way in which every soul that comes to God may pray. . . . the prayer of the publican, 'God be merciful to me a sinner!' This language, so suitable to the sinner . . ." (MTP, Volume 32, Year 1886, page 702).
In another sermon on Luke 18:13, Spurgeon says:
>>Come just as thou art, with nothing of thine own, except thy sinfulness, and plead that before the throne — "God be merciful to me a sinner." . . . If thou believest in the Lord Jesus Christ, if thou wilt stand where thou art, and just breathe this prayer out, "Lord, have mercy! God be merciful to me a sinner, through the blood of Christ." I tell thee man, God never did deny that prayer yet; if it came out of honest lips he never shut the gates of mercy on it. It is a solemn litany that shall be used as long as time shall last, and it shall pierce the ears of God as long as there is a sinner to use it. Come, be not afraid, I beseech you, use the prayer before you leave this Hall. Stand where you are; endeavor to realize that you are all alone, and if you feel that you are guilty. now let the prayer ascend. . . . Come, brother come. You say you are too vile. No, brother, you cannot be too vile to say, "God be merciful to me." >>
Spurgeon closed the sermon with this plea:
>>Let us use this prayer as our own now. Oh that it might come up before the Lord at this time as the earnest supplication of every heart in this assembly! I will repeat it,—not as a text, but as a prayer,—as my own prayer, as your prayer. Will each one of you take it personally for himself? Let everyone, I entreat you, who desires to offer the prayer, and can join in it, utter at its close an audible "Amen."
Let us pray,"GOD-BE-MERCIFUL-TO-ME-A-SINNER."
[And the people did with deep solemnity say] "AMEN.">>
(New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 4, Year 1858, #216, page 416).
While the Flounders profess to follow Spurgeon, has anyone ever heard a Flounders preacher encourage a lost sinner to "stand" and pray the Sinner's Prayer?
While frequently they bad-mouth Joel Osteen, is not Joel actually closer to following Spurgeon than the Flounders?
For instance, after every sermon I have heard Joel Osteen preach on television, he urges unsaved sinners to repent of sin, believe on Christ, and pray the sinner's prayer. Has anyone reading this ever heard a Flounder do that, or read such on a Hybrid Calvinist website?
If it can most likely be said that Joel Osteen reaches more sinners on one Sunday, with a message of repentance and faith at the close of his message, than the Flounders-Friendlies Co. reaches in a month or year, should not the Flounders be thinking --
"We have met the enemy . . . and it is not Joel . . . it is us!"
Ernest Reisinger, a disciple of Iain Murray, who founded the Founders, "prayed the prayer of the publican" on the occasion of his conversion (Ernest Reisinger, A Biography, page 20). How many other Flounders may likewise have a similar testimony?
The British multi-millionaire whose wealth made the Banner of Truth Trust a publishing establishment, Mr. D. J. W. CULLUM, found assurance of salvation thru prayer at an "altar." The Banner of Truth of July 1971, says that "it was while kneeling at a morning service in St. George's Cathedral, Jerusalem on Christmas Day, that he received assurance of his salvation in Jesus Christ" (page 2, issue #93).
Dr. Brad Waggoner, who works with Lifeway and assisted the Flounders in the "Building Bridges" conference, was likewise one who prayed the Sinner's Prayer.
Why don't the Flounders stop their belly-aching about Joel and the SBC, start following Spurgeon's example, and use the Sinner's Prayer? Perhaps they could make some converts to Christ.
Why do they accuse Joel Osteen of "not preaching the gospel" when Joel directly appeals to lost sinners to repent, come to Christ, and pray the Sinner's Prayer at the close of every sermon . . . and in both of his books, he does the same?
Joel obviously uses the Sinner's Prayer like Spurgeon did, so why is anyone surprised that he is making a lot of converts like Spurgeon?
posted by Bob L. Ross @ 3:01 PM
55 Comments:
Amen!
Thanks for sharing those citations from Spurgeon. They were a great blessing. Surely Spurgeon would say "amen" too were he here.
God bless
Stephen
This article has pretty green leaves but no fruit.
First and foremost, to make the assertion that Mr Osteen in anyway can even compare to Spurgeon is very simply, laughable, the last time I checked my Spurgeon collection I didn’t see any prosperity messages. It's interesting that someone would equate numbers with success, when all the evidence shows that this is simply not the case. Osteen has a great turn out every week, but this in no way tells anyone that he is traveling the narrow path. You only have to listen to one sermon by the man to realize that it’s 99% fluff and 1% meat (I'm being generous). Just because one tells sinners to repent, believe in Christ and say "the sinner's Prayer" doesn't mean that their souls are properly prepared to do so (Romans 10 really explains this well, perhaps Joel and you should give it a read), the content of the message must move a man (i.e. the Good News, not what God can do for you). I would also like to see in your next blog all the scripture references where our Lord used the “sinner’s prayer” to bring someone to Himself, you know what; I’m willing to take just one. Let’s do our best to remain biblical in our preaching, not follow someone who in any logical estimation is leading people down the Broad Road.
OSTEEN & SPURGEON
hollandmin said...
This article has pretty green leaves but no fruit.
First and foremost, to make the assertion that Mr Osteen in anyway can even compare to Spurgeon is very simply, laughable,. . .
The only "comparison" being made was the fact that Joel uses the "Sinner's Prayer" as Spurgeon did, which contrasts in comparison with the Flounders and other Hybrid Calvinists who actually often denigrate the use of the Sinner's Prayer.
Are you with Spurgeon and Joel on the use of the Sinner's Prayer, or with the Flounders, etc.?
Furthermore, if you have not seen any "prosperity" messages in Spurgeon, it may be because you have not read him enough.
Spurgeon himself was very prosperous. A gentleman once criticized Spurgeon for riding "First Class," saying he was not riding "First Class," but was "saving the Lord's money."
Spurgeon replied that he was riding "First Class, saving the Lord's servant."
I looked those passages up in the context of the entire sermon. I don't think it's quite the same as Joel Osteen. Can you really see Osteen preaching a sermon called "Turn or burn"? It's not the method I have a problem with. It's message. It's style. Spurgeon preached exposistory style (not verse by verse style of expository preaching to be fair) whild Osteen preaches topical after topical after topical. The stuff you hear from Him is no different than you would hear from the world. If you watch his TBN broadcasts Osteen starts out with telling a bunch of silly jokes that have no spiritual meaning whatsoever then gets into his lesson which is not text based but rather his thoughts or opinions and somehow takes every verse to mean as a promise of empowerment. Then at the end quickly tacks on a sinner's prayer. And besides just because Spurgeon did it that doesnt' make it right. Look to scripture.
hollandmin:
Spurgeon never endorsed Mormons as fellow brothers in Christ, like Joel Osteen has. Guess that's one of the reasons I like Spurgeon.
SPURGEON
Grigs said...
just because Spurgeon did it that doesnt' make it right. Look to scripture.
Does this mean that you think Spurgeon was wrong for his use of "The Sinner's Prayer"?
Do you think Ernest Reisinger did wrong when he prayed "The Sinner's Prayer"?
REV AGAIN
Rev. said...
Spurgeon never endorsed Mormons as fellow brothers in Christ, like Joel Osteen has. Guess that's one of the reasons I like Spurgeon.
Remember, Rev, we have already refuted you about the Mormons, and you slithered away!
But . . . does your above comment mean that you like the use of "The Sinner's Prayer" as it was used by Spurgeon to lead sinners to Christ?
Just wondering . . . did you pray the Sinner's Prayer like Brother Reisinger when he was saved?
It is my opinion that Spurgeon was wrong to use the prayer. But At least Spurgeon preached the real Gospel as opposed to a false Gospel preached by Osteen. A good Gospel message with a bad alter call is still a mistake, the ends do not justify the means. But it was the style at the time. So no one is perfect. As to Ernest Reisinger, I think if he uses the sinner's prayer that is a mistake. However I said the sinner's prayer when I was saved. But no prayer saves a person. Only saving faith given my God can save someone. As JI Pakcer once said, "God acknowledges the needle of truth in a haystack of error". Would I excommunicate someone for doing it? By no means, however it is something that is deep entrenched in baptist culture that will take time to root out (though I'm presbyterian fyi). I personally evangelize Edwards style in traditional puritan form.
WATCHES TBN!
Grigs said...
If you watch his TBN broadcasts Osteen starts out with telling a bunch of silly jokes that have no spiritual meaning whatsoever
I rather surprised that someone of your critical "taste" watches TBN! Surely, there's nothing there for your appetite, is there?
As for Joel, I've heard him several times, and he does start out with "one" joke, and I always look forward to hearing it. So seldom today does one hear a joke that is not "genital" or something "nasty." Does your preacher never tell a joke, or make a remark that is less than "serious"?
Spurgeon was a great humorist himself, and that is another thing I admire about him. In fact, he said he was often criticized for using humor in the pulpit, but if the critics only knew how much he held back on using it, they would compliment him! I have never read a man more witty than Spurgeon!
ANOTHER TESTIMONY ON
THE SINNER'S PRAYER
Grigs said...
It is my opinion that Spurgeon was wrong to use the prayer. . . . So no one is perfect. As to Ernest Reisinger, I think if he uses the sinner's prayer that is a mistake. However I said the sinner's prayer when I was saved.Grigs said...
It is my opinion that Spurgeon was wrong to use the prayer. But At least Spurgeon preached the real Gospel as opposed to a false Gospel preached by Osteen. A good Gospel message with a bad alter call is still a mistake, the ends do not justify the means. But it was the style at the time. So no one is perfect. As to Ernest Reisinger, I think if he uses the sinner's prayer that is a mistake. However I said the sinner's prayer when I was saved. . . . however it is something that is deep entrenched in baptist culture that will take time to root out (though I'm presbyterian fyi). I personally evangelize Edwards style in traditional puritan form.
So, Spurgeon was wrong, Reisinger was wrong, but you say you also said the Sinner's Prayer when you got saved? Now you ar a pedobaptist, baptizing babies, and evangelize "Edwards style," whatever that is.
As someone has said, "It takes all kinds."
There are some things that are not essential. I personally believe the scripture allows for the baptism of infants and my personality reflects that of Edwards therefore I am very serious when I preach and teach and my evangelism is very Princetonian (thats what I meant by Edwards) in that I believe in using my theology (i.e. election, particular redemption, ect...) in the free offer of the Gospel. And therefore use the free offer in the way Edwards did.
"EDWARDS"
Grigs said..."
I preach and teach and my evangelism is very Princetonian (thats what I meant by Edwards)
As I recall, Edwards was fired at Prnceton over the "communion" issue. I'll not go into that.
What I wish to know is, do you agree with Edwards view which we quoted on the Flyswatter? This clearly conflicts with the Hybrid Calvinist point of view.
See:
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2008/04/jonathan-edwards-misrepresented.html
I'm not sure if I understand the question but I am not a hyper calvinist. I believe it is perfectly consistent with Calvinism to offer the Gospel freely to all. But just because it is offered to all that doesn't mean God has to effectually call all. I stand by Edwards and Whitefield on this.
Bob:
Who refuted who? You called Presbyterians "heretics" and claimed Mormons were merely "in error" before editing your comments. You are also the one who claimed that God's grace was "large enough" (or something to that extent) that professing Mormons would/could be saved. That flies against the Gospel, Bob, and you know Spurgeon would certainly never endorse such nonsense.
"Slithered away"? Is that the way you refer to a brother in Christ? I may have been rather pointed with you at times, Bob, but I've never been rude.
BTW, Bob, among other things, you're history is confused. Edwards was not fired at Princeton. He was dismissed from the pastorate in Northampton over the Half-Way Covenant / communion issue. He died of a small pox inoculation just as he was to take over at Princeton.
SHORT ON MEMORY, REV?
Rev. said...
Who refuted who?
I'm afraid you lost your memory, Rev.
Could you please cite for me my words which say those things you alleged? I just don't think your memory is serving you accurately.
RUDE TO REV
Rev. said...
"Slithered away"? Is that the way you refer to a brother in Christ? I may have been rather pointed with you at times, Bob, but I've never been rude.
That's what it looked like to me Rev, once you got pinned down. Would it be OK to use "wiggled" instead of "slithered"?
Why are you so easily offended by a simple metaphor?
ONE FOR THE REV
Rev. said...
Edwards was not fired at Princeton. He was dismissed from the pastorate in Northampton over the Half-Way Covenant / communion issue. He died of a small pox inoculation just as he was to take over at Princeton.
That's one for you, Rev. I almost had a "shutout" on you till I "hung" that pitch.
REV AND THE SINNER'S PRAYER
I happened to remember, Rev, that you seem to have forgotten to reply to my questions to you about the Sinner's Prayer.
Howcum you didn't answer my questions? Do you agree with Spurgeon on the Sinner's Prayer, or not? Did you pray the Sinner's Prayer when you were saved?
EDWARDS & GRIGS
Grigs said...
I'm not sure if I understand the question
Do you agree with Edwards? --
>>
"It is not intended that the natural faculties are not made use of in it. The natural faculties of the sinner receive this light: and they receive it in such a manner that they are NOT MERELY PASSIVE, but ACTIVE in it; the acts and exercises of man's understanding are concerned and made use of in it. God, in letting in this light into the soul, deals with man according to his nature, or as a rational creature; and makes use of his human faculties."
>>
Edwards continues under this same heading:
>>
2. It is not intended that outward means have no concern in this affair. As I have observed already, it is not in this affair, as it is in inspiration, where new truths are suggested: for here is by this light only given a due apprehension of the same truths that are revealed in the word of God; and therefore it is not given without the word. The gospel is made use of in this affair: this light is the "light of the glorious gospel of Christ", 2 Cor. 4:4. The gospel is as a glass by which this light is conveyed to us, 1 Cor. 13:12. "Now we see through a glass." . . . Indeed a person cannot have spiritual light without the word.
>>
Edwards' view is obviously what is found in the Creeds on "effectual calling," and there is no "born again before faith" doctrine in his remarks. The sinner is simply "passive" in the sense that he does not furnish the "power" which is necessary in the new birth, but he is "active" when the Spirit uses the Word of His power to influence the sinner's "natural faculties" to receive or believe the Gospel.
Thus, according to Edwards' view, faith may be referred to as a "gift" on account of the power of the Spirit in His use of the Word of Truth in influencing the sinner to receive the Gospel.
This understanding dispels the Hybrid Calvinist notion that the sinner "cannot" believe until after he is regenerated, and holds that while the sinner does not believe "apart from" the power of the Spirit's use of the Word, he does believe simultaneously with the Spirit's use of the Word.
to respond simply... regeneration precedes faith. All Calvinists uphold this basic truth.
Grigs, Hello!
You said, "to respond simply... regeneration precedes faith. All Calvinists uphold this basic truth.
You show a severe lack of learning on the subject which is typical of Reformed Calvinist bloggers.
Spurgeon did not believe it. The historic Baptist confessions did not affirm it. Even John Calvin held a different view.
A little learning is a dangerous thing... You, James White, and the Flounders certainly prove that old adage correct.
Charles
"BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITh" HERESY
Grigs said...
to respond simply... regeneration precedes faith. All Calvinists uphold this basic truth.
We have demonstrated that this heresy is not Creedal Calvinism, nor is it what was taught by our leading Baptist confessions, theologians, nor even by Calvin and the Puritans. It was a post-17thth century development and was incorported into the development of the "ordo salutis."
Yes, you will find it taught by many modern Pedobaptists and a few Baptists who follow the Pedo theologians. It is also taught by the Flounders, with Ernest Reisinger having imbibed it from Pedo Iain Murray.
But our leading Baptist scholars have not held it, as we have demonstrated in past articles on the Flyswatter.
I don't think you have read our past articles. You might begin with this one: Regeneration-Calvinism
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/bob-ross-regeneration-calv_114261719496018943.html
BOB TO REV
I am just wondering, Rev, if you are the same James W. Galyon who is identifed with the "Founders Ministries"?
If so, I don't suppose you would claim to "speak" for Tom Ascol or the Flounders, but is what you have been saying at least "consistent" with what you understand to be the same as what Ascol and the Flounders teach?
If you are associated with the Flounders, then it would be understandable that you would give the Pedobaptists a "pass" in regard to the "regeneration of infants," infant baptism, infant church membership, and other aberrancies, rather than identifying those items as "heresies."
BOB TO GRIGS ON
EDWARDS . . .AGAIN!
Your have alleged, Grigs, that you somehow line up with Jonathan Edwards. So far, I have seen no resemblance between you and Mr. Edwards.
And you still have not answered my question:
"Do you agree with Edwards?"
I quote you his statement, and you remain mum.
Also, where do find that Edwards taught the "regeneration before faith" heresy? I quoted you his views, and you have said nothing about any agreement or disagreement.
You have admitted that you think both Spurgeon and Ernest Reisinger were "wrong" to use the Sinner's Prayer. Will you also allege that Edwards must have been "wrong" on what he taught?
"HERETICS"
Just to remind the Rev, here is what I said about "heresy" in the post a few weeks ago:
>>
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"?
>>
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2008/03/does-god-care-about-numbers.html
If the Presbyterian teaching that their infants get "regenerated" in infancy, or even before they are born, because they are "covenant children," if that is not "heresy," what is?
This is basically the same heresy of the Jews who said, "We be Abraham's seed."
Spurgeon denounced this Pedo doctrine to be "damnable" doctrine.
Spurgeon:
"I do not know an error which causes the damnation of more souls than that at the present time. . . . Sacramental efficacy and baptismal regeneration, ALL SPRING FROM THE FIRST ERROR OF INFANT BAPTISM" (New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 6, page 168).
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-you-agree-with-spurgeon_16.html
rev. said a few weeks ago:
"I'm a huge fan of Spurgeon, and agree with him on the issue of baptism/paedobaptism."
Somehow, I don't believe the Rev is telling the truth in that remark.
Rev seems to be a man similar to Bunyan's character, "Mr. Facing-Both-Ways."
don't claim to be an expert, but I will say this I am sure he upheld that view. Also plus I didn't said Spurgeon or Calvin upheld that (though I think He did) I said I know.
Bob:
In addition to editing your comments (or "Charles" doing such), you answered my point-blank question if an individual believing on the "Mormon Jesus" would enter heaven with the words, "We never know how 'far off' one may be from the Lord, like Peter's case (Luke 22:54), yet still have a legitimate faith in his heart...It is simply impossible for us to judge others' hearts as to the matter of faith in Christ."
You speak of others soft-pedaling in relation to "Calvinism," but this is a horrible soft-pedaling of the Gospel and orthodox Christology.
I didn't edit and delete portions of my comments in our first running chat, but you certainly did, then you speak of me 'slithering away.' Some of what you stated I am unable to cite because you deleted it, Bob (or "Charles" did). Nice tactic there.
NO EXPERT
Grigs said...
don't claim to be an expert,
Well, when you bother to become informed on Edwards' view, which we have given, I'll be expect'n you to show what you claim he believed.
Until then, I'll just go with what I have by Edwards, and I have yet to find the idea of "born again before faith" in him.
The problem, Bob, is you accuse both Presbyterians and Mormons of heresy (though initially you stated in one of your comments that Mormons were guilty of "error," not heresy), and say that both will enter heaven.
The question is not if a Mormon may turn from his sin and false religion and embrace Christ (which he/she can), but whether or not a Mormon may believe upon the "Mormon Jesus" and be saved. You said he can. I say he can't. We'll never agree on that because assenting to a false gospel and a false Christ is truly horrendous.
You spout Spurgeon as if he agrees with your position (in calling paedobaptists "heretics"), yet you never replied to my comment about Spurgeon having paedobaptists in positions of authority at the Pastors College and at the orphanage. He did not care for paedobaptism, no doubt there, but he didn't refer to his brothers and sisters in Christ as heretics and the like.
You say I don't believe I'm telling the truth about where I stand on the issue of baptism. Is that simply because I prefer to weigh which words to use? Because I refuse to outrageously mock others with whom I disagree? I'm not facing both ways, as my paedobaptist friends will tell you. It's just that I prefer to exhibit the manner of Christ.
REWARD FOR REV.
Rev said:
The question is not if a Mormon may turn from his sin and false religion and embrace Christ (which he/she can), but whether or not a Mormon may believe upon the "Mormon Jesus" and be saved. You said he can.
Here's a reward for you, Rev, or any one who reads the Flyswatter:
$100 where Bob Ross ever said that if one believes on the "Mormon Jesus" he will be saved.
You also alleged, Rev, that I deleted something from my comments. I have checked my original comments, and they are exactly as posted. Charles has never deleted anything I have written.
You must have been drinking some of James White's "White Lightnin'" to be so far afield in your comments.
I stand by what I have said about anyone in any sect who believes on Jesus Christ as Saviour -- that person is saved, according to John 3:16-18.
What you have said lately is worse than
"slithering;" it is just plain old fibbing.
REV'S PEDO FRIENDS
Rev said:
I'm not facing both ways, as my paedobaptist friends will tell you.
And why would they tell me? Pedos love it when Baptists are willing to "cover" Pedo departures from Scripture in such a way that Pedos are not "offended." Our Baptist anscestors, however, suffered at the hands of the Pedos, both in England and in this country.
BOB TO REV:
Second try:
I am just wondering, Rev, if you are the same James W. Galyon who is identifed with the "Founders Ministries"?
Do you have Tom Ascol's approval in your approval of Pedobaptists who teach that their babies get born again in infancy, and are qualified for baptism and church membership? Do you and Tom believe that the Pedo is saved who believes he was "regenerated" in infancy?
First, when asked point-blank whether or not a Mormon would enter heaven believing upon the Mormon "Jesus", you eventually answered, "We never know how 'far off' one may be from the Lord, like Peter's case (Luke 22:54), yet still have a legitimate faith in his heart...It is simply impossible for us to judge others' hearts as to the matter of faith in Christ."
Prior to that, you didn't answer my statement about Joel Osteen stating publicly that Mormons are Christians, but asked in a "REPLY TO REV" on Mar. 9, "Or, do you really believe that all of those in unorthodox churches are unsaved?"
On March 12 you stated, Bob, that a Mormon "is saved at the point of believing in Christ as Savior in he indeed believes on Christ in spite of some theological/ecclesiastical errors."
The following day (Mar. 13) I stated: "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?"
The following day (Mar. 14) I commented: "...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?"
You replied on the 14th: "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."
I responded on the 15th: "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?"
On the 16th you stated: "Sorry, rev., I m not interested in rabbit trails. You know what I meant, and you know what Joel meant."
No fibbing here and not drinking anything harder than coffee.
DOES REV "SPEAK FOR"
ASCOL & THE FLOUNDERS?
Bob to Charles:
I wonder, Charles, if you know if Rev is the same JAMES W. GALYON who is in tight company with Tom Ascol and the Flounders?
I have noticed this name on the Flounders' web site as a contributing writer. http://www.founders.org/journal/fj54/contents.html
If this is the same JWG, I wonder if he is making posts on the Flyswatter in an effort to "whitewash" the Pedos and thereby try aleviate some of the "heat" on Tom?
I know from talking with a Flounder-Friendly pastor that some of the Flounders are not at all happy with how Tom caters to the Pedos.
If Rev is posting his Pedo-friendly comments to try to help Tom, if I were in Tom's shoes I don't think I would be happy with my would-be defender.
Rev sorta reminds me of Flounders-Friendly Scott Morgan who used to post here, even issuing a challenge to debate, and commending Hardshell types. Neither one helps the Flounders' reputation.
I wonder, Bob ("Charles"), why you didn't post my comments from last night before belittling me with these comments this morning?
Yes, I am the James W. Galyon who wrote an article on the New Perspective on Paul which was published by The Founders Journal. In fact, if you read the article, I would think you would like it because I come down strongly against baptismal regeneration.
No, I am not in tight company with Tom Ascol, though I do have a great deal of respect for the man. Of course, before you make that a point of your crusade, remember that such men as Malcolm Yarnell have said the same sort of thing.
No "whitewashing," Bob, as my comments on this blog will attest. Besides, Tom is more than capable of handling any "heat" you throw at him. Besides that, I haven't been "defending" Tom here. I've been trying to discuss with you whether or not Joel Osteen's assertion that Mormons ARE Christians is valid.
Why can't you merely discuss issues without belittling others, Bob?
BOB TO REV
Rev. said...
I wonder, Bob ("Charles"), why you didn't post my comments from last night before belittling me with these comments this morning?
The Flyswatter is Charles' blog, and he alone has charge of posts.
I don't even see the comments until Charles has the opportunity to put them up. If Charles wishes to explain why the posts don't go up immediately, that will be his decision. I assume Charles has others things to do besides keeping a vigilant watch over posts, especially those which are relatively of no significance.
So far as your post is concerned, it adds nothing new to what was discussed with you before. You have assumed far more from Joel Osteen's TV comments than reasonable, for in context he was referring to Mitt Romney's statement that he believed in Christ. You won't have this, but insist upon the "Mormon Jesus." You obviously know Romney's heart. Joel doesn't, neither do I. I just know this, that if Mitt Romney believes in Jesus Christ, John 3:16-19 applies to him, as it does to every member of any sect (including your alleged "friends" in the Pedo sect) who believes in Jesus.
You do not hesitate to quote Pedo scholars who believe and teach the "regeneration" of infants, as you quoted in your "Atonement" article. As I recall, most (if not all) of your quotes are from Pedo scholars who teach students that Pedo babies get "regenerated" as babies. Yet you believe that they are Christians. But is their "regeneration" idea what Jesus taught? Or do they have a "Presbyterian Jesus" who teaches "baby regeneration." Do the Pedos really represent the true Jesus when they falsely allege that He taught "baby regeneration"?
To me, the Pedo heresy is worse than what anyone "thinks" about a Mormon who says he believes in Jesus. What one "thinks" about that means very little; but what Pedo babies grow up thinking -- that they got saved as babies -- is what Spurgeon called "damnable."
Bob:
Have you watched the Osteen interview? I've provided the link on here. Watch it for yourself. He is asked point blank about the differences between Mormon theology and historic Christian theology and balks. I've not taken him out of context or tried to make him look bad. He did that all by himself.
Why did Spurgeon put a paedobaptist - George Rogers - in charge of the Pastors' College, Bob?
By the way, I thought you'd appreciate my article on the atonement since I quoted A.A. Hodge from his Outlines of Theology. After all, Spurgeon, writing in The Sword and the Trowel, declared, "We commend 'The Outlines of Theology' to all who would be well instructed in the faith. It is the standard textbook of our college. We differ from its teaching under baptism, but in almost everything else we endorse Hodge to the letter."
THE ELUSIVE REV
You just will not deal with your inconsistency, will you Rev?
You want to harp, carp, and complain about Joel Osteen but you just won't say a word about your "friends," the Pedos and their "baby regeneration."
Joel is not baptizing people into the "Mormon Jesus," but the Pedos have "baptized" millions of babies on the basis that they have been or will be "regenerated" since they are the "covenant children" of babies. But you think it is more significant what Joel "says" on TV about a man who claims to believe on Jesus, which you say would have to be the "Mormon Jesus."
What about the "Pedo Jesus" who is represented as teaching infant "regeneration"?
Spurgeon called it "damnable."
You keep trying to skip the rope which hangs you.
Who is being elusive, Bob?
First, let's deal with Osteen. On FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace (Dec. 23, 2007), this conversation transpired (emphasis added with all caps):
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. And so, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me, and I don't think he would — anything would stop me from voting for him if that's what I felt like.
WALLACE: So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?
OSTEEN: I probably don’t get hung up in them because I haven’t really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don’t know.
Wallace asks, point blank, "Is a Mormon a Christian?" Osteen answers, "Well, in my mind THEY are."
Christians have historically been much more concerned with the "little details," however, like Scripture Alone, Christ Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, the Holy Trinity, Christology. Without those "little details," Christianity is lost.
Second, I've told you repeatedly that I do not affirm paedobaptism. Neither did Spurgeon...which brings me to the third point.
Third, you have eluded my points that C.H. Spurgeon had a "damnable" paedobaptist as the head of the Pastors' College and that one of their main texts (endorsed by Spurgeon himself in 'The Sword and Trowel') was written by a "damnable" paedobaptist - A.A. Hodge ('Outlines of Theology').
FOR THE REV'S EYES
Review of "Lectures on Baptism," delivered by William Shirreff, who left the Presbyterians and joined the Baptists. Of this book, among other things --
C. H. Spurgeon said:
"Here is an IMPORTANT ORDINANCE, which to many of us seems to shrouded in GRAVE ERROR, and out of that error flows the MOST PERNICIOUS TEACHING--teaching which the evangelical believer in infant baptism abhors as much as we do, but for which he will always be in part RESPONSIBLE so long as he holds and practises that UNSCRIPTURAL RITE."
(C. H. Spurgeon, The Sword and the Trowel, page 36, Year 1879).
This is in the same 1879 volume of Spurgeon's magazine as the remark about Hodge's book -- a book which was later replaced by a work by David Gracey.
It should be noted that even when Spurgeon found cause to commend a book by a pedobaptist to a certain point, he nevertheless made made it a point to say that he rejected pedobaptism.
Also, Spurgeon did not say he endorsed everything else Hodge taught, but "ALMOST everything." Certainly, that would include Hodge's heresy on "baby regeneration," would it not?
Where's my comment from this afternoon (well before 7:03 PM), Bob/Charles? Are you eluding my comments?
I'm a little surprised you don't accuse Spurgeon of "endorsing heresy" - although he denied paedobaptism and deemed it unbiblical (as I have done) - he in fact used a paedobaptist text at the Pastors' College (the fact that it was later replaced is irrelevant) and he in fact had a paedobaptist heading up the school. I've never endorsed paedobaptism. Yes, I have paedobaptist friends, as did Spurgeon, yet you continually assail me on that very point. You're the one being inconsistent, Bob.
rev, Hello!
You wrote, Where's my comment from this afternoon (well before 7:03 PM), Bob/Charles? Are you eluding my comments?
No, that would be what happens on Tom Ascol's blog. No eluding here.
Unlike James White and Tom Ascol, I don't sit in front of a keyboard all day. Sometimes it may take a few hours, or a day or two, or even a WEEK or two, for me to get around to posting someone's comments.
I'm a sorry excuse for a "blogger," I know.
Rev, I haven't see you posting on James White's blog, have I? Oh, that's right, you can't. James doesn't allow comments.
It's nice to have The Flyswatter, isn't it? :-)
Charles
"PEDO FRIENDS"
Rev said:
Yes, I have paedobaptist friends, as did Spurgeon, yet you continually assail me on that very point.
You have at least one thing in common with Spurgeon.
I "assail" you not for your "friends," but for your double-standard in judging who is saved and who is lost.
You give the Pedos a pass, despite their belief that they were "regenerated" in infancy, but you are not so liberal with someone else who is involved with serious theological error.
You regard Pedos as Christian "scholars" who teach that their infants get "born again" in infancy, but you condemn Joel Osteen in regard to Mitt Romney's profession to believe in Jesus. You say it would have to be the "Mormon Jesus," but you remain mum about a "Pedo Jesus." Why don't you at least be consistent?
I, too, have Pedo friends. In fact, I counted Lorraine Boettner a friend. He visited me years ago in the 1950s, and I enjoyed his visit. Although he said he did not know when he was born again, I assumed that he must have been born again, for he appeared to me to be a believer in Christ.
It's one thing to have Pedo friends, and it's another thing to relate in such a way was to promote the Pedo theology and practice.
Spurgeon would never tolerate that type of thing, where it would go contrary to Baptist theology and practice, and in the case of George Rogers, it is said in Spurgeon's Autobiography that not one of Spurgeon's students had a "change in sentiments" due to Rogers' influence (Vol. 3, page 353).
That cannot be said today among the Hybrid Calvinist Baptists. I have personal friends who have gone Pedo as a result of Hybrid Calvinist theological influence. I even recommended Boyce College of Southern Seminary in Louisville to a fine young man who once worked for me, and he went there; in due course of time, he went over to the Pedos. I feel somewhat responsible for this.
.
Bob:
I'll close with this...
It is not a double-standard to declare as I do that paedobaptists (i.e., Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) are within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy while affirming that Mormonism has never been within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
I'm not judging who is saved and lost. God does that and He reveals in His Word that individuals are saved only through Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-Man, who was crucified for sinners and who was raised from the dead. NO ONE is saved outside of *this* Christ.
I don't give the paedobaptists a pass, Bob, but neither do I condemn them as non-Christians.
And no, I'm not liberal "with someone else who is involved with serious theological error" when that theological error is a repudiation of every tenet of orthodox Christianity - all the way from the Holy Trinity to the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone.
Paedobaptism is "serious theological error," Mormonism, at best, is heresy.
Why don't I rail against a "Pedo Jesus"? Because He is the Jesus Lorraine Boettner trusted for salvation. For that matter, He is the same Jesus you trusted for salvation. There is no "Pedo Jesus" or "Baptist Jesus" or "Lutheran Jesus." There is only THE Jesus (and He is not the Jesus of the Mormons). I am being consistent on this point.
REV'S POSTS
Charles said:
Rev, I haven't see you posting on James White's blog, have I? Oh, that's right, you can't. James doesn't allow comments.
It's nice to have The Flyswatter, isn't it? :-)
You appear to be right, Charles -- you and I would not be allowed to post on Hybrid Calvinist blogs as you permit posts such as Rev's on the Flyswatter.
btw, REV -- WHAT
ABOUT THE SINNER'S PRAYER?
You have been asked, Rev, more than once, if you agree with Spurgeon on the use of the Sinner's Prayer.
http://writingsofbobross.tripod.com/0108.htm
Also, did you say the Sinner's Prayer when you were converted? Did you walk the aisle during an invitation, like the iMonk and others who denounce invitations?
Most of the Hybrid Calvinists were saved under ministries they now brand "Arminian." What about you? Were you, like Spurgeon, converted under "Arminian" preaching?
Bob:
I'll be happy to answer your question(s).
If, by the "sinner's prayer" you mean a sinner praying to God in Christ for mercy and forgiveness (such as what Spurgeon is pointing to with the tax collector), then yes, I agree with Spurgeon wholeheartedly. We are to call upon the name of the Lord.
Did I say "The Sinner's Prayer," or a sinner's prayer? As a sinner, I asked the Lord to forgive me of my sins, based upon His love and mercy and grace and forgiveness through Christ alone.
No, I did not walk an aisle during an invitation.
No, I was not converted under "Arminian" preaching. I was converted by God's grace through the proclamation of the Gospel. The Gospel is neither "Arminian" nor "Calvinist," it is Christian.
I hope I've answered these questions to your satisfaction.
REPLY TO REV
Rev. said...
It is not a double-standard to declare as I do that paedobaptists (i.e., Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.) are within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy while affirming that Mormonism has never been within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
That was never the issue, Rev. The issue had to do with the possibility that a person could believe on Christ for salvation, even if he was in a sect which held to serious error.
Rev:
I'm not judging who is saved and lost. God does that and He reveals in His Word that individuals are saved only through Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-Man, who was crucified for sinners and who was raised from the dead. NO ONE is saved outside of *this* Christ.
But you did make a judgment, for you decreed that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ cannot do so if he is a Mormon. So you have every last Mormon on earth unsaved.
I have a preacher friend who was saved when he was a Mormon. He did not get out of Mormonism till later on. But now I know he was really unsaved, thanks to you, Rev.
Rev:
I don't give the paedobaptists a pass, Bob, but neither do I condemn them as non-Christians.
Are you implying that I condemned them? You are the one who set up a standard other than faith in Christ, NOT ME! I have even told Campbellites in public debates that if they believe on Christ for salvation, then they are saved despite their error on baptism. I NEVER condemn a believer, regardless of where you find him.
Rev:
Paedobaptism is "serious theological error," Mormonism, at best, is heresy.
So, does this mean that a Pedo can believe he was "regenerated" as a baby, and he is nevertheless saved? He can believe that Jesus taught that Pedo babies get "born again" as infants, but that is not a "Pedo Jesus"? I had a Pedo in the store lately, and I asked her about the new birth. She said Pedo babies get baptized during their first year, and when they are 15 years old they get "confirmed" as Christians. That was her answer to my question, "How is a person born again in your church?"
Rev:
There is no "Pedo Jesus" or "Baptist Jesus" or "Lutheran Jesus."
Agreed. But where do you get this "Mormon Jesus," that a person who is in the Mormon church can't really be a believer in Jesus Christ, just because the Mormon theology is bad theology? The Mormons I have met don't know much about what their church teaches! That preacher I mentioned above told me that he never knew what the Mormon church taught until after he was saved. He said his getting saved is what led him to study and understand the error of Mormonism, and then he left it. He is living proof that a member of the Mormon church can become a believer BEFORE he has enough light to leave that sect. But his leaving the sect did not ADD one thing to his salvation!
Bob:
If you read my past comments, I never stated that a Mormon could never be saved. C'mon Bob! I said a Mormon could not be saved by believing on the "Mormon Jesus" and remaining in Mormonism. BTW, I'm glad to hear the story about your friend. Please don't try to twist my words to accuse me of saying that Mormons, or anyone other people, are beyond the scope of God's grace. I NEVER "decreed that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ cannot do so if he is a Mormon." In fact, I repeated several times on other comment threads that this was not the case.
Bob: "So you have every last Mormon on earth unsaved." Insofar as they have not embraced Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-Man, who was crucified for sinners and who was raised from the dead. Again, Bob, NO ONE is saved outside of *this* Christ. All those who do embrace *this* Christ, however, will be saved.
Bob: "But where do you get this 'Mormon Jesus,' that a person who is in the Mormon church can't really be a believer in Jesus Christ, just because the Mormon theology is bad theology?"
Mormon theology isn't merely bad theology, it's worse than heresy. It's *not* Christian theology despite the Mormons claiming the name of Christ. It is the theology of a false Christ and a false gospel. You do remember, don't you Bob, that the Lord Jesus said that many would come in His name and so forth? Joseph Smith's version of "Jesus" (the "Mormon Jesus") is a created being who got married and had a family, etc., etc., etc. If you can't understand that, Bob, I don't know what else to say.
Thanks for posting my comments, Bob/Charles.
ONE MORE THING, REV
You mentioned the Lutherans, who are Pedos.
I have a good friend who is a Luthern minister. He knows I believe he is dead wrong on his doctrine.
But when he was attacked by the Campbellites in his town's newspaper on instrumental music, and was challenged to debate, he solicited me to come and debate the Campbellite preacher in defense of the use of instrumental music.
I did not hesitate for a moment. I went, had the two-night debate, and the Campbellite church dismissed their preacher! Also, the Campbellite elders later came and apologized to the Lutheran preacher for the attacks made on him in the newspaper by their ex-preacher.
I believe the Lutheran minister is a Christian, but I just as strongly believe he is teaching heresy on infant baptism. When I wrote up the Pedos awhile back on this, this minister emailed me and confirmed that what I wrote was true. You can read it here:
http://writingsofbob
ross.tripod.com/0046.htm
He said:
>>
Hi Bob!
Let me put in my two cents worth and tell you that as your pedoaptist
'conservative' Lutheran friend, you're 100% right! I wholeheartedly affirm baptismal regeneration. I believe that baptism is for the remission of all of our sins rather than just for our 'past' sins as our Campbellite friends assert. Leaving the person to fend for himself regarding his present and future sins. True, not all of we who baptize infants and children believe the same regarding baptism. Even sadder to say that much of Lutheranism in the world today is swimming in its own theological soup and doesn't have a clue what it believes. But you have me pegged right on the money. And no hard feelings as a result of it.
Keep up the good work.
Your pedobaptist friend, Keith Schweitzer
>>
Now, Rev, I just wonder: Would you say Brother Schweitzer is a Christian, or would you say he has a "Lutheran Jesus" for believing "baptismal regeneration"?
As for me, I don't judge him as unsaved on account what I believe is his serious theological error about infant baptism. If he believes in Christ as His Saviour, he comes under John 3:16-18.
But that is not going to keep me from standing against infant baptism and the idea that babies get "regenerated" in infancy, and I will not be a party to anything which helps promote it.
I am "consistent," Rev. I believe one can be in a cult -- or whatever -- yet can still be a believer in Jesus. Sure, they should heed the call, "Come out of her, My people" (Rev. 18:4), but their being "in" something does not overrule faith in Christ.
Peter did not believe in the death and resurrection of Christ at one period of his life, but he had confessed Christ earlier, and was born again (Matthew 16:16).
It took him awhile to see the error of his way.
A lot of early believers were still zealous for the Law, and had to learn their error (Acts 21:20).
You see, Rev, the "head" is one thing, the "heart" is another. As one said of Luther, "His heart was sounder than his head."
REV'S CONVERSION
Rev said:
No, I was not converted under "Arminian" preaching. I was converted by God's grace through the proclamation of the Gospel. The Gospel is neither "Arminian" nor "Calvinist," it is Christian.
That's true, Rev, and it can reach into the heart of a Mormon, can't it? And that's what Joel Osteen assumed when he referred to Mitt Romney's profession that he believed in Jesus. Joel was not talking about your "Mormon Jesus." Joel assumed that Romney meant Jesus as Joel means Jesus. You ought to apologize for your accusing Joel, in effect, of believing one is saved by believing in a "Mormon Jesus." Surely, you don't believe that Joel Osteen had a "Mormon Jesus" in mind, do you? That's just your own spin, trying to discredit Joel. Don't be jealous of Joel, like so many of his critics, just because he will probably reach more this Sunday with God's Word than they will probably reach in a lifetime.
Now, you are in "big trouble" with the Hybrid Calvinists. They don't believe anything is "Gospel" unless it is according to their "Calvinist" theology. They would most likely say that you were (1) saved either under "Calvinist" Gospel or (2) deceived by the "Arminian gospel." Some of them don't believe you can be saved under Arminian preaching. See "Outside the Camp."
Was the preacher, or church, or whatever, of the faith and order of the "Reformed Calvinism"? If not, according to the "Reformed" camp, it had to be "Arminian."
Sorry, Rev, but that's just the way they spin it.
Bob,
I wasn't going to say anything else, but I must respond to you last comment:
*Yes, the Gospel definitely can reach into the heart of a Mormon. I've never denied that or said anything to the contrary (as I've declared repeatedly throughout out 'chat').
*C'mon, Bob! That's not what Osteen assumed. Chris Wallace asked him point-blank: "Is a Mormon a true Christian?" Osteen replied, "Well, in my mind they are."
Wallace didn't ask if a Mormon could become a Christian, but if a Mormon is a Christian. There's a VAST difference.
REV & MORMONS
Rev. said...
I wasn't going to say anything else, but I must respond to you last comment:
Yes, the Gospel definitely can reach into the heart of a Mormon. I've never denied that or said anything to the contrary (as I've declared repeatedly throughout out 'chat').
Do I take this as an acknowledgment that there may conceivably be a Mormon somewhere out there in Utah or elsewhere who does indeed believe on the "real" Jesus and is saved, despite still being "in" the Mormon church?
I know that must be a great "stretch" for you to simply concede that as a theoretical "possibility," Rev, but at least it is an improvement over what I thought you were saying when you first started writing.
As for Joel, why don't you just leave him to the Lord, and you go on about your "chaplain" work? If any of us ever do half as much good for the cause of Christ as Joel, maybe you'll find it in your heart to "forgive" him for being "wrong" on what he said on TV. I can assure you, as a rather regular listener to Joel's TV messages here in Houston, I have never heard Joel one time on TV say anything about anybody's being saved unless he repented, believed in Christ, and accepted Christ as the Lord of his life. True, Joel preaches a lot more on Christian living than he preaches theology or doctrinal things, but he nevertheless always includes in his message an exhortation to the lost sinner to come to Christ. That is more than I can say for many of the so-called "Calvinists" I hear and read. It does not take a whole lot of words for the Holy Spirit to convict and save a soul, and Joel says quite enough. Many souls at Lakewood will tell you that they were "called" to faith in Christ by listening to Joel.
Spurgeon tells about how he was just testing the acoustics at the Tabernacle, and he quoted, "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." Later a man showed up to say that resulted in his being saved. It didn't take a "Five Point Calvinism" sermon for the Holy Spirit to convict and save him.
So, you just "lay off of Joel" until you hear him preaching Hybrid Calvinism, that someone gets "born again before faith." Then lower your guns on him!
Post a Comment
<< Home