• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Call for a little more honesty

Reformed

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
rlvaughn said:
Probably the one thing that is the most common thread in what I understand as easy-believism is a preacher or "soulwinner" getting people (whether en masse or one-on-one) to repeat a prayer after them and then tell them if they repeated that prayer they are saved.
Click to expand...

My first taste of undergraduate biblical training was at a school that approached evangelism in this manner. While it is popular to call it "easy believism", the genesis of this type of evangelism can be traced to Charles Finney and his brand of Revivalism. Finney was heavy on decision and light on repentance. Just get the sinner to say the prayer. What Finney started, many 20th-century evangelists perfected. I remember the altar calls at stadium and auditorium evangelism events that my bible college was famous for. Finney would be proud of things like, "If you can't stand for the Lord in a place like this surrounding by hundreds [or thousands] of His people, you won't stand for Him anywhere!" Or one of my favorites, "Grab the person next to you and bring them up front." And if they made a false profession? No problem! Come back to the next rally and we will get you to come forward and re-dedicate your life. We will even give you a little "spiritual birth certificate" sticker to put in the front of your Bible. When I remember this time in my life I feel a mixture of sadness and anger.

OK. My venting is done.
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
No. I didn't. I just do not know if that is true. With over 47,500 churches what are the numbers of the ones who believe in "easy believeism".

Where are you getting your stats?

Your claim is that out of 47,544 churches at least 23,773 churches hold to "easy believism". This would be "most" by one church. I simply want to see the date you use to make the claim.
Click to expand...
The majority of leadership holds that view. Leadership is determined by majority vote at convention.
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Revmitchell said:
1. Using the Romans road is biblical. In fact using any set of scriptures to communicate the gospel is biblical. Romans 1:16
Click to expand...
Every scripture in the "Roman Road" is sound and biblical. Every preacher or soul-winner who uses it is not.
Revmitchell said:
2. Helping someone to communicate through prayer is biblical. Romans 10:13
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, but Romans 10:13 says nothing about helping folks communicate through prayer.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Revmitchell said:
The soul-winning efforts get a bad rap and usually by calvies who have an ax to grind due to their false theology.

1. Using the Romans road is biblical. In fact using any set of scriptures to communicate the gospel is biblical. Romans 1:16
2. Helping someone to communicate through prayer is biblical. Romans 10:13

If you don't like it don't do it. However, in the end the sincerity of one's heart is not diminished by calvies poor doctrine.
Click to expand...
We grew up with the "Roman Road". It was an excellent tool to explain the gospel. We used it during E.E. (Evangelism Explosion). As a teen I always enjoyed going through the neighborhoods sharing the gospel. I don't think that would work these days because people tend not engage door to door folks.

But you are right. These things are tools that often get a bad rap, and from my experience normally from Calvinists. It is sad because many have shared testimonies of being reached with the gospel through the methods they now oppose.
 
The Biblicist

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
What I reacted to was:I thought you were familiar with the SBC enough to know that the Convention itself did not hold Sunday Services (so I thought you were referring to church services).
Click to expand...
Oh please, now you are gettng so ridiculous it is hard to even read what you have to say! I never said such a thing. I explained "church services" as referring to those services I attended at various churches. Of course the SBC does not hold church services.

The problem jon is that you are so bent on just winning an argument at any cost that you don't even bother to be fair or courteous.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The Biblicist said:
Oh please, now you are gettng so ridiculous it is hard to even read what you have to say! I never said such a thing. I explained "church services" as referring to those services I attended at various churches. Of course the SBC does not hold church services.

The problem jon is that you are so bent on just winning an argument at any cost that you don't even bother to be fair or courteous.
Click to expand...
You do not have to read if you find it so ridiculous. Simply skip over my responses.

Basically I am saying we need to stay away from these types of generalizations because there are often people who recognize it as false to what they have experienced. Members should freely share their experiences and even their ideas. But when we start categorizing other Christian churches based on our experiences it can cause unnecessary complications (as evidenced by your responses).

To me it is very simple. Speak plainly about what you know. Do not speak about what you do not know. Do this with the purpose of building up a brother. Do not do this with the purpose of tearing down.

If by courteous you mean I should have simply let the implication of the initial charge slide, then you should have PM'd me and I would have obliged. People often say things that are not quite correct by accident. But I cannot know that unless you let me know. Next time simply PM me and tell me you'd appreciate it if I'd overlook the comment as it was a mistake you'd rather not engage. We only have the written word to go by on these forums.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Martin Marprelate said:
Yes. It sort of requires that a moderator would not do things that require rebuke. Otherwise Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who moderates the moderators? Who rebukes the rebukers?
Click to expand...
The Administrative staff moderates the moderators. (above that, I really don't know)
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
If by courteous you mean I should have simply let the implication of the initial charge slide, then you should have PM'd me and I would have obliged. People often say things that are not quite correct by accident. But I cannot know that unless you let me know. Next time simply PM me and tell me you'd appreciate it if I'd overlook the comment as it was a mistake you'd rather not engage. We only have the written word to go by on these forums.
Click to expand...
For the record, you have it set to where people cannot PM you.
 
Pastor_Bob

Pastor_Bob

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
The Administrative staff moderates the moderators. (above that, I really don't know)
Click to expand...
The membership moderates the moderators. If the moderation gets out of hand, the membership walks away and so do the sponsors.

I made it my practice to never moderate in the thread in which I was debating. If I felt moderation was necessary, I brought it before the council and let them decide.

A moderator moderating his own debate is about as productive as a coach officiating his own basketball game.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Martin Marprelate said:
It would be nice to think they did.
Click to expand...
It would be good to know that they do.

Just as you know that they do based on conversations and reports that you have posted. Many have been discussed and actions have taken place. I am surprised you do not acknowledge these things - a thread was even deleted at your request.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Pastor_Bob said:
The membership moderates the moderators. If the moderation gets out of hand, the membership walks away and do the sponsors.

I made it my practice to never moderate in the thread in which I was debating. If I felt moderation was necessary, I brought it before the council and let them decide.

A moderator moderating his own debate is about as productive as a coach officiating his own basketball game.
Click to expand...
That is the current policy.

The problem is one of communication. When another staff member moderates the thread in which a moderator is involved, the involved moderator typically "takes the blame".

Since early this year, however, moderators have not moderated their own threads or posts in which they were involved.

The only exception I can think of is when I was a "lone staff member" and posted at the start I was going to do so. This had been done previously by Tom. But that was the only exception that comes to mind.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
I do not have it set that way.

I do not know how this happened. @rlvaughn mentioned it but I thought it was an error.

Try to PM me and let me know if it goes through. It is set so that all members can PM me, but if this is not the case then perhaps @Squire Robertsson can lend a hand.
Click to expand...
It appears whatever was going on a few weeks ago when i tried to message you has been resolved, can you confirm receipt of the PM?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top