D.L.Moody

I agree with the problem you have here. I see no biblical support for a pastor, calvinist or not, saying that he is not to be a personal witness. I vehemently disagree with my Presbyterian brothers who believe that the Great Commission was given only to the church and should only take place when the church is gathered. The disciples were told that they were to make disciples as they went. Part of that process was to teach them everything the Lord commanded them, included the command He had just given them.

Paul told Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. It sounds more like a cop-out for a pastor to claim that he is to equip and not to also "do the work of the ministry" alongside the other believers in his care. This is not biblical leadership. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed.

 

Excellent post, mnw, and I completely agree.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]This is why I have (elsewhere) made negative references to the expression "winning souls". Thanks for the quote. I think he expressed the problem very well. Unfortunately the majority of churches I have visited are still stuck in this mode. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm, let me see if I have this right. Evidently the approach doesn't matter. God will save who He wants to regardless of the method used as long as the Gospel is presented somehow. So it doesn't matter if a D. L. Moody approached the sinner with great compassion in his heart and voice, or if John R. Rice wept with compassion for the sinner when he preached on Hell.

And of course methodology is completely out of the window. Advertising is absolutely unneeded, whether it be a billboard, a radio spot or a believer inviting another believer (all forms of advertisement).

Packaging the Gospel nicely is out of the question. When I write a tract for the finicky and perfectionist Japanese, it should be done on plain white paper with the plainest of fonts, and absolutely no graphics. God will save that soul regardless of what I do, anyway, as long as I simply do my duty and get that Gospel out!

 

mnw, Please take a closer look at some of the things you say.

Do you really mean that? More errors is what we need?

And what did God ever do before these guys were born?

I would say that one of the reasons communities are becoming more depraved is because they've heard an arminian gospel that has no teeth. God is an old grandpa that loves the world so much that he would never turn anyone down for heaven. The lost believe that they can get saved when ever they feel like it, because that's what we've told them. God is so anxious to save them, that all they have to do is "say the prayer" and He, as their servant, will spring into action and save them at their beckoning command.

I'm not trying to be a smart alec, but think about what you're saying. While you were writing your post, how many souls went to hell? Is their blood on your hands? If so, are you saying that God has delegated the authority to save souls to you? If this is a useless debate, why are you posting on it?

Who will miss the trumpet call? The elect?

Your theology is made up of neat sounding and sentimental cliches. I would urge you to dig deeper into your bible for your beliefs.

 

Wise and proverbial words which I dare not speak against.

 

As I said before, if Moody's error was in giving the Gospel to too many people, then I am sure there were worse errors he could fall into. We all have errors. If my error is to tell the Gospel to the unelected, then so be it.

Um, God used others. That was an easy one. I just used Moody and others as an example because their's is the era under discussion.

Right, this "armenian" theology you Calvis love to discuss is so far removed from reality. This isn't the thread for discussion of individual verses so I will not go into that. But look at history. When the men of the era we are talking about proclaimed the Gospel communities were changed. I have never seen such a surge of calvinistic doctrine as we have NOW, and it is NOW that we have the problem. I do not portray God as the slave of any simply waiting on them to "say a prayer." I will make sure they understand they are sinners in the sight of God and worthy of punishment. But I will not push a person and make sure they feel really bad and guilty, I will not tell them to go home and think God is calling them, I will not get them to wallow in misery for hours to make sure they are really elect. If I can lead a person to the Lord then I will do it. Leave GOd to decide if they are elect or not.

Let's use your logic. I have no responsibility and no blood on my hands because all the responsibility and all the blood is on GOd's hands. I did not say it was useless, but when I see calvi's pushing their position into what seems EVERY thread, it does appear too much energy is being used up in ifs, whats and maybes.

Come on, you know that was tongue-in-cheek... right? You know sarcasm... right?

Amen! Moody was charged with being sentimental and now I am! What ranks to join!

Why is it SOME calvis think they are the only ones who have taken the time to look at their Bibles? Some, not all calvis have such pride. So many of you say, "If only you could study the Bible like me, then you would really understand."

I would urge you to dig deeper into your Bible, instead of Calvin's writings...

 

And why is it so many non-calvis think we sit around discussing the Institutes all day. A lot of Calvis haven't even read John Calvin. They've read the Bible. That is what convinced me.

 

Did history begin when the men of this era were born? This time period was known as the Second Great Awakening. Who were the primary preachers during the First Great Awakening? That would be Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, both 5-point Calvinists. We have already talked of Charles Spurgeon, who built a church of 10,000 before mass media. Also a 5-point Calvinist. What about the Reformers? Although 5-point Calvinism hadn't been codified yet, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, all believed in what would later be termed Calvinism (at least some form).

I would submit to you that the problem we are having in our churches now is not Calvinism. The problem is that we try any method possible to get a positive response to God. Anyone who prays a 3-sentence prayer is told they are now bound for heaven and should never doubt that. We forget that a positive response to God is not what saves. We are justified by faith.

In the parable of the soils 3 out of the 4 soils represented positive responses to the gospel. 2 of those 3 were not really saved, as evidenced by the fact that they produced no fruit, but withered. This is the way it is today, mostly as a result of mass evangelism with little actual moving of the Holy Spirit. We have churches that are two-thirds full of unbelievers and now you want to blame Calvinism!

 

I don't think any of the Calvinists on this board are against the indescriminate preaching of the Gospel. You'll have to take that up with those who are.

I've never read Calvin, only snippets here and there.

No one here said you had to do any of those things. Take that up with whoever that might be.

I didn't say that. My concern is that too many christians get their doctrine from cute snippets and catch-phrases, and your post was full of them.

And if anybody has a sense of superiority, it's independent fundamental baptists, of which I have been a number for more than two decades. I have to admit that's what attracted me to the IFB - the cockiness. I've repented of that, but sometimes "Adam" still raises his head.

 

I did not say that. In fact, I pointed out that GOd used other men before this era.

 

mnw, "arguing" is o.k. with me as long as it's not personal. It is a DEBATE forum. I think we all sometimes say things that shed more heat than light during the 'heat' of the debate. Sometimes we have to take a break, sometimes for days, to cool down. Some of us are very direct in the way we say things, which cause some of the others to accuse us of being mean. I like to be as direct as possible, but not uncivil. I want to be direct enough to CHALLANGE your beliefs.

I like your posts and hope you stay on with us. We're all learning here.

 

NOTE: I am not debating with you here!

I see no problem with a genuine prayer of repentance. Jesus commended the tax collector who said a very simple prayer.

On an interesting note, I just read through John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress to my 5-year old son. Tough reading. But there was a very interesting point in the story where Christian shared the gospel with another man they met in one of the cities (I don't remember which). He then, after the man expressed genuine repentance and desire for forgiveness, led the man in what can only be called "The Sinner's Prayer." It was much more thorough than the sinner's prayer of today, but it was the same idea. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the "drive-by" sinner's prayer, where you use the shot-gun approach to get the masses to repeat after you and then count them as converts on your next advertizing pamphlet.

I don't think I said that. It is not what I meant. I believe "awakenings," which I would typically term revivals, are sovereign movements of God. He uses who He chooses, calvinist or arminian. Both should try to be as accurate in sharing the gospel as possible so as not to give the lost false hope that they are actually saved when they are not.

Not really! Just typical exageration to make a point.

I didn't necessarily think it was extreme. I just like to clarify what people mean and get them and me to think about what is said.

But, isn't that the truth? REALLY JUST KIDDING.

We had a conversation in another thread about this very thing. The problem I have is not that I will always point to 5-Point Calvinism as it relates to salvation (which seems to be some of the major disagreements here). The problem is that I believe that just about every page of the Bible drips with the sovereignty of God. It came up in the story of Samson, the story of David and his child, the question of Adam and Eve, etc. already on this board. I don't go back to Calvinism, per se. I go back to God's sovereignty because that is a major way that He receives glory.

I kind of like these discussions. I have thought about it a lot recently, though, wondering if it just appeals to my flesh and pride. I don't know. It is something I have to examine in myself. I do want to make sure that if I were to ever meet any of these people that I disagree with, we could consider one another in the same family and not enemies. We have one enemy, and I don't see him here.

 

J.D., Calvibaptist, its good to know you both! Please do challenge me and God help me to respond in an edifying way... whether we agree or not.

I would agree that the worldly "marketing" techniques that have been brought into some churches are wrong. They wrongly look at converts as statistics and the working of God as the result of effective business principles.

While I do not believe in limited atonement or irresistable grace (you'll have to forgive me for that ), I do believe in the sovereignty of God. To me God allowing choice in no way takes away from His sovereignty. A word we don't hear much, but I have come to love, is Providence. I have a collection of Puritan Paperbacks and one of them is titled "The Mystery of Providence." It is by John Flavel. If you can get a copy I am sure you will enjoy it.

Thank you for debating with me. I look forward to more.

As the Word says, "Iron sharpeneth iron..."

As for Moody and Spurgeon in the original question. As Calvibaptist has said, God can sovereignly use calvinists and non-calvinists.

 

Who is saying that! Send em to me! I know you all take time away from calvin'st institutes to read a little spurgeon.

 

OP question:

&gt;
&gt;
Obviously, this was predestined to happen.

Ed

 

Rip I know you want to hear from a non-C, but let me add my stiuation. I am a C in a A church where I preached and taught for years. Since my conversion to C, I have been strictly forbidden from speaking in the church. In fact I was initially summoned to a meeting where I was invited in no uncertain terms to leave the church. Cooler heads prevailed and I was allowed to remain. I can not leave the church for reasons I'm not at liberty to devulge. So for now I'm just stuck there under a gag order. That's why my posts on Monday mornings are edgy. I get irritated listening to my A pastor rail on me from the pulpit while I just sit there and take it. This forum is my outlet. Thank God.