Friday, September 08, 2006

Jerry Grace on The Founders

Over at SBC Outhouse, Brother Jerry Grace has some thoughts on The Founders.

The problem with Founders Calvinists is they cannot permit any tolerance for us at the same time they demand tolerance and inclusion from us. I am happy for you if you are a Calvinist and practice your Christianity in that format. But I have a real problem if your Calvinism turns into a device designed to exclude and capture territory of your “enemies”. That’s what I hear amid all the rhetoric from the Founders; their enemies are the rest of the Southern Baptist Convention; their desired territory is our existing churches.

"Their desired territory is our existing churches." I believe Brother Jerry is right. Most of the "you have to be born again before you believe" Reformed Calvinists don't seem to place a high value on evangelism, in my opinion. Their growth comes from proselyting. This puts them at odds with the overwhelming majority of churches in the Southern Baptist Convention and also historically with Baptists such as Charles H. Spurgeon.



At Saturday, September 09, 2006 11:57:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

jerry grace said . . .

That’s what I hear amid all the rhetoric from the Founders; their enemies are the rest of the Southern Baptist Convention; their desired territory is our existing churches.

A few months ago, Founders-affiliated pastor Scott Morgan wrote on this blog:

At Friday, April 28, 2006 1:42:10 PM,

Scott said...

I wish Al Mohler could over see all the seminaries and kick out Paige Patterson! Patterson should have never been seminary President because he is a Liar!

Scott is a welcome contributor on the Founders' blog and he has had Professor Tom Nettles preach at his church. I really think Scott probably illustrates the intolerant attitude of the Founders in general. They are not going to grow thru evangelism, and their only alternative is to make proselytes to their form of Hybrid "Calvinism." This necessitates a constant downgrading of all other theological views with which they differ.

At Sunday, September 10, 2006 5:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since this seems to be the place for spurgeon, here is some...

To our minds, the Scripture seems very explicit as to how this Church should be ordered. We believe that every Church member should have equal rights and privileges; that there is no power in Church officers to execute anything unless they have the full authorization of the members of the Church. We believe, however, that the Church should choose its pastor, and having chosen him, that they should love him and respect him for his work's sake; that with him should be associated the deacons of the Church to take the oversight of pecuniary matters; and the elders of the Church to assist in all the works of the pastorate in the fear of God, being overseers of the flock. Such a Church we believe to be scripturally ordered; and if it abide in the faith, rooted, and grounded, and settled, such a Church may expect the benediction of heaven, and so it shall become the pillar and ground of the truth." From the sermon of C. H. Spurgeon, "The Church Conservative and Aggressive," Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 7, pp. 658-659.

At Monday, September 11, 2006 2:19:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

splurgin said...

Since this seems to be the place for spurgeon, here is some...

. . . and the elders of the Church to assist in

If a church is an evangelistic, soul-winning church, its method of church government will probably be satistactory and effective. At least, that has been my observation.

I have also observed that some of the Founders churches apparently favor having "elders," but they unfortunately do not demonstrate that they follow Spurgeon's emphasis on evangelism and soul-winning.

I was invited to be guest-speaker for a Founders-elders type church at a recent Sunday morning service, and I was saddened to see that they have declined to about 10-15 percent of the former membership. When they had a larger membership several years ago, they decided to adopt the "elder system," but they did not practice giving invitations or doing soul-winning, plus they put a strong emphasis on "Reformed" theology. Somehow, these things evidently worked against them.

At Monday, September 11, 2006 3:58:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott said...
scott said . . .

By the way, if one would share the five points of the system of scripture that is nicknamed " Calvinism" one would give a clear presentation of the gospel.

You are young, Scott, so you can look back a few years from now and recall what I am about to tell you.

I have witnessed the various "revivals" in churches of five-point Calvinism since the mid-50s, and I have lived to see their decline and often their demise. Top-heavy Calvinism does not grow churches, for a "system of theology," regardless of how "sound," does not convert sinners to the Lord.

The only denomination I know which has survived five-point Calvinism is the "baby regenerationist" Presbyterians, and they are split up in more ways than a box of pick-up-sticks. As long as they have members who reproduce children, the presbies will be able to maintain their churches. Baptist churches, however, that "go to seed" on Calvinism dry up, decline, and die.

At Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:58:00 AM, Blogger Eye said...

Amen to that Brother Bob!

In Him,


At Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:40:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would you say that Spurgeon was wrong on elders? Yea or Nea


At Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:12:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott said...

Your talking about numbers and I'm talking about preaching the pure gospel of grace.
As I have said before that I served at three of the largest churches in the SBC.

No, you are wrong. I was talking about the effects of Top Heavy Calvinism on Baptist churches which I have observed over the years since the 1950s. That's when I first began to see some of the pastors and churches "go to seed" on "five point Calvinism" as if that "system" was the next best thing to verbal inspiration. If you know of a single exception to what I said about the decline and even demise of such churches, what church is it?

At Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:26:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott said...

I forgot to ask. Would you say yes or no that you agree with Spurgeon . . .

I am a wily ole veteran debater and learned a long time ago not to allow myself to become diverted onto rabbit trails. Your questions are void of any significance other than you are hoping to "catch" me in something you think may be of use to your cause. You will therefore go away empty -- like the Pharisees when they often tried to pit Jesus against Moses.

slurgin said...

Would you say that Spurgeon was wrong on elders? Yea or Nea

Ditto in response to this.

If Spurgeon were alive today, I think he would be posting on this website, rebuking and repudiating the Hybrids who are misappropriating his views and practices.

At Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:31:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott said...

I'm with you totally that we must be aggressive in preaching the gospel( Romans 1:16) however I believe most SBC churches need a recovery of the gospel.

There is a good report on the Baptist Press today about small churches doing evangelism.

TENNESSEE--Evangelism-minded churches see growth in baptisms & attendance.

When we hear of Founders' churches doing this type of thing we will have more respect for the Founders' claim that they believe in evangelism. They need to put the gospel and evangelism first in contrast to their Top Heavy Calvinism.

At Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:29:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott said...

I personally believe you are a Calvinist but something has hurt you over the years and you are a man on the attack.

Yes, I have been hurt over many years, seeing young preachers adopt Hybrid Calvinism and ruin their potential for having fruitful ministries. I don't know anything that has hurt me more.

As for "Payback," it might rather be called "Preemption." I do all I can to preempt anyone from being overcome by Hybrid Calvinism and getting themselves off of the Gospel path. I have been trying to do this since the 1950s when I first saw several young preachers like Lasserre Bradley Jr. and his young preacher-associates go off into Hardshellism, which is logically where Hybrid Calvinism leads.

As for Spurgeon, I have demonstrated many times that his Calvinism is not in line with the Hybrid Calvinism of the Founders and other "Reformed" sources who misuse him. They only take Spurgeon "piece-meal" and disregard the rest. People who really appreciate all of Spurgeon do not shipwreck into Hybrid Calvinism. It is similar to how they abuse the writings of the apostle Paul. Paul spent the years covered by the book of Acts preaching the Gospel, winning souls, and starting churches, but the Top Heavy Calvinists put more emphasis on portions of the book of Romans than they do Paul's soul-winning and simple Gospel message.

At Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:24:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott said...

You are afraid to admit that you are a five point Calvinist

In view of the type of "Calvinism" represented by the Founders, the "Reformed," and similar sources, with their teaching of the false doctrine of "born again before faith," I am indeed "afraid" to call myself a "Calvinist" for fear that I will be numbered with the Hybrid Top Heavy Calvinists who promote aberrant Calvinism.

Therefore, I refer to myself as a "Confessional Calvinist" rather than one of your current clones who call themselves "five point Calvinists." Modern Top Heavy "five point Calvinism" is enough to make God "spew" (Rev. 3:16).

At Wednesday, September 13, 2006 2:51:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott said...

However any one who is a Calvinist but thinks Joel Osteen is one of America's best preachers

I just think you are probably a little envious of Joel, since you used to be in "big" churches but now you are scratching in a much smaller patch.

I don't recall ever saying that Joel was "one of America's best preachers," but I have observed a lot of very good things about his preaching. Dr. Mohler said he preaches the Gospel, as you no doubt recall while gnashing your teeth.

He preaches very simple biblical truths which are very practical in Christian life, and he is getting the ear of thousands of listeners. He also uses the "sinner's prayer" which was used by C. H. Spurgeon in soul-winning, one of the "forgotten" things pointed out by Iain Murray in "The Forgotten Spurgeon," page 107, 1966 edition; page 101, 1973 edition.

I really think you perhaps are just a little jealous of how the Lord has blessed Joel, since you are such a stellar, deep, strong-as-a-bear's breath five-point Calvinist after the order of Tom Nettles, and yet Joel is blessed in preaching on what you regard as the more "shallow" subjects.

At Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Bob to Scott:

I hope you, Scott, will begin next Sunday to follow Spurgeon's and Joel Osteen's examples in using the sinner's prayer -- if you are not already doing so.

Here is what Spurgeon said:

May I be made sure of heaven, and all that in a moment?"

Yes, my friend, 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.
[New Park Street Pulpit, sermon #216, Volume 4, page 415].

Do you use the "sinner's prayer" at your "five-point Calvinist" church, Brother Scott? Do you know any Founders who follow Spurgeon's example?

At Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:13:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Bob to Charles:

You will recall, Charles, how greatly Gene Bridges has tried to scold us for quoting the "baby regenerationists" among the "Reformed," as if their doctrine had no significance in relation to what he teaches.

On Gene's "Triablogue" blog, however, they are now promoting the "RTS Recommended Reading List," and whose books do you suppose are prominently featured?

You guessed it -- the "baby regenerationists" -- Berkhof, Frame, Vos, Sproul and similar "Reformed" authors.

This reveals just how misleading Gene has been in trying to disinterest readers as to the signficance of the materials we have furnished from the "baby regenerationists" which demonstrate their false doctrine of "born again before faith."

Gene actually promotes these heretical teachings by recommending these writings, if for no other reason.

At Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:14:00 AM, Blogger The Dog of Freetown said...

The thing about Spurgeon is that he was more than happy to recognise how close he was to being Sturgeon. I'm not so sure the Founders exercise such a sense of humour though. The bounders.

At Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:19:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

its funny how much time bob can dedicate to typing about white lightning, founders, and the rest,

But can't spare 2 seconds to say yea or nea on whether Spurgeon was wrong on elders.

At Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:28:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the difference between spurgeon's sinners prayer and the modern sinners prayer is that what passes as the sinner's prayer today is more of a superficial montra.

I have watched many people at youth rallies and conferences led is mass corporate sinners prayers in which the prayer itself contain "repentance", but the preceding counselling didn't mention it, nor did it mention substitutionary atonement.

So we got a kid parroting the minister's sinners prayer, affirming things that haven't even been explained to them.

I've seen some of these kids, who 1 day after praying the sinners prayer and being affirmed in their salvation, couldn't tell you what the gospel was.

A lot of "Do you want to go to heaven?" Yes. Let's all hold hands and pray this prayer.

If spurgeon did the sinners prayer that way he was wrong. I don't think that he did.

Spurgeon is not infallable. After all he sides with the presbys on elders.

At Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Bob to Charles:

To illustrate, Charles, what the REAL "Reformed" baby regenerationists think about Baptists, go to the following website where a disciple of John Framd and student at Reformed Theological Seminary reveals the "orthodox" attitude of the pedo Presbyterians about Baptists:

We have to give credit to these professors of "We be Abraham's seed" heresy for having far more sense than the "Reformed" Baptists, for the pedos at least recognize that the only relatively certain way to perpetuate their churches is by adding infants to the church roll. That is they reason they have survived as a denomination over time. If the pedo churches were dependent upon making converts to Christ by preaching the Gospel, they would gradually decline and in course of time shutdown.

This is what usually happens to "Reformed" Baptist churches, for they do not practice adding infants by baptism and they normally fail to make converts by evangelization. The result is they decline and eventually shutdown. I have seen it happen for about 50 years.

At Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott said...

I do not use a " Standard sinners prayer " in our Worship service or evangelism training or when I'm out visiting our guests in their homes.

So does this mean that you disagree with Spurgeon on using the "sinner's prayer"?

I led hundreds as a layman and Evangelism minister to pray the prayer and most were baptized that Sunday, Wed night or whenever. The sad news is that most either left the church or just stopped coming.

Did you follow-up these cases and go see all of them to find out why they were not coming? What did they say?

What does this say about our regenerate church members?

If no one followed-up on those who stopped coming, how do you know but what they stopped because of something they thought was wrong with the church?

Why do most Southern Baptist not know what Baptists believe?

That is a mighty broad brush. The only SBs you know anything about are those you know personally, and you don't know their hearts, do you?

I shared the gospel with a guest last night at our Wed night service. He was the brother of one of our members. His name is Zach and is 17yrs old. He told me that he prayed a sinners prayer when he was younger but has not been in a church in over 5yrs and has not read his Bible in at least that time and has been living a consistant life of sin. Most Southern Baptists would just call him " Backsliddin" but the scripture calls him child of the devil.

So you don't believe one can "backslide"? I have had several recovering "backsliders" come into my store from time-to-time, and they tell me about how they were saved years ago, then fell into "the world" for a long period. Now they are back and living for the Lord. All converts don't fit the same mold, do they?

Would you agree with me that our SBC as a majority has sinned in not dealing with these type of " Zachs" in our churches and that moving them to a prospect list is wrong? I want to hear what the" Confessional Calvinist" says on this one?

I want to know how many times you visited those non-attending people you say you had won but after their baptisms they stopped going to church? Did you ask them if they wanted to renounce their profession of faith and baptism and be taken off the church roll?


splurgin said...
its funny how much time bob can dedicate to typing about white lightning, founders, and the rest,

But can't spare 2 seconds to say yea or nea on whether Spurgeon was wrong on elders.

Spurgeon's practice is OK by me. Spurgeon's elders were not the "ruling elders" of the Presbyterian type who "run things" in the individual churches, then are subject to a broader or higher "presbytery" which rules the Presbyterian denomination overall. Spurgeon's elders did not govern the church.

Spurgeon's elders functioned in "spiritual" matters. Spurgeon explains their functions in the Autobiography, Vol. 3, pages 22-25.

When I came to New Park Street, the church had deacons, but no elders; and I thought, from my study of the New Testament, that there should be both orders of officers. They are very useful when we can get them -- the
deacons to attend to all secular matters, and the elders ‘to devote
themselves to the spiritual part of the work;
this division of labor supplies an outlet for two different sorts of talent, and allows two kinds of men to be serviceable to the church; and I am sure it is good to have two sets of brethren as officers, instead of one set who have to do everything, and who often become masters of the church, instead of the servants, as both deacons and elder I should be. . . .

My elders have been a great blessing to me; they are invaluable in looking after the spiritual interests of the church.

The deacons have charge of the
finance; but if the elders meet with cases of poverty needing relief, we tell them to give some small sum, and then bring the case before the deacons. . . .

Some of the elders have rendered great service to our own church by
conducting Bible-classes and taking the oversight of several of our home mission
, while one or two have made it their special work to
“watch for souls” in our great congregation, and to seek to bring to immediate decision those who appeared to be impressed under the preaching of the Word.

One brother has earned for himself the title of my hunting dog, for he is always ready to pick up the wounded bird. One
Monday night, at the prayer-meeting, he was fitting near me on the platform; all at once I missed him, and presently I saw him right at the other end of the building. After the meeting, I asked him why he went off so suddenly, and he said that the. gas just shone on the face of a woman in
the congregation, and she looked so sad that he walked round, and sat near her, in readiness to speak to her about the Savior after the service. . . .

Eternity alone will reveal how many have thus been arrested and blessed by a wise and winning word spoken in season, and accompanied by earnest prayer and clear Scriptural teaching concerning the way of salvation. Others of the elders have also exercised a
most gracious ministry in various parts of the metropolis, and in the home counties, through the agency of the Tabernacle Country Mission and Evangelists’ Association. Many churches, that are now self-supporting and
flourishing, were started
in a very humble fashion by the brethren
connected ‘with one or other of these two useful Societies.

The labors of the elders in visiting the sick, seeking to reclaim the wandering, pointing
inquirers to the Savior, and introducing candidates to the fellowship of the church
, are recorded in the Lord’s Book of Remembrance, and are gratefully recollected by their Pastor and fellow-members.

That description does not sound like the type of "elders" in the Presbyterian church, does it?


Anonymous said...

If spurgeon did the sinners prayer that way he was wrong. I don't think that he did.

So if one uses the "sinner's prayer" the way you think Spurgeon used it, do you think it is OK to use it?

At Friday, September 15, 2006 12:25:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Bob to Charles:

The same type of Top Heavy "Calvinists," Charles, that we are confronting by means of this website were also alive and well during C. H. Spurgeon's time.

Spurgeon often referred to them, calling them by terms such as "ultratists," "superfine brethren," "hypers," "high Calvinists," etc.

On one occasion, for example, during a period in which Spurgeon was having many souls profess faith in Christ, he made the following remark about these "Calvinists:"

I have been treated somewhat severely by that class of brethren who are exceedingly strong in their Calvinism. Many suspect me of being a great heretic. . . . The Calvinism of some men is not the Calvinism of John Calvin, nor the Calvinism of the Puritans, much less the Christianity of God.
-- New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 5, pages 365, 366.

This is exactly the case with us today who are deemed "heretics" when we do not go along with the "Reformed" "Calvinism" which teaches such heresy as "born again before faith," and even "born again before being born physically," such as the "baby regenerationists" like Shedd, Berkhof, Frame, Sproul, etc.

At Friday, September 15, 2006 9:27:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Bob to Charles:

I suppose you saw, Charles, how Al Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was unhappy about Joel Osteen's answer to a question at a book-signing in Boston, and so Mohler posted a criticism of Osteen on his blogsite, implying Joel was a "pandering prophet."

There are thousands of preachers, ministers, and schools in the "Reformed" camp which teach the heresies of "baby regeneration" and "born again before faith," and yet Mohler panders to this crowd while criticizing Joel Osteen as a "pandering prophet."

Why should anyone pay any attention to Mohler's criticisms of others when he himself panders to the "baby regenerationists" by speaking for them and inviting them to SBTS as guest speakers?

Which is more worthy of criticism -- what Joel Osteen says in reply to a question, or the heresies of "baby regeneration" and "born again before faith"?

Southern Baptists need to wakeup to the fact that Mohler's leadership is making the SBTS an ally of the "baby regeneration" and "born again before faith" heresies.


Post a Comment

<< Home