D.L.Moody

[BroShane]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Timtoolman:
I would say it is easier to get a crowd to follow then one by one. A person who is not a personal wittness can still be used by God. Just that God has used many people from the pulpit, who I dare say because of the times, have reach more for Christ then Spurgeon. I think one cannot be ignored over the other. It seems today a lot of pastors are saying that it is not their responsiblity to wittness to others. Only too prepare other or equipe others for the Lord. I find no such passage in the Bible that excuses pastors from being wittinesses and winning others to Christ.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by mnw:

Spurgeon, one of the greatest preachers, soul winners and teachers. Moody, a great preacher and soul winner. Maybe he told too many stories, but he made them focus on Christ! Moody maybe was not the most intellectual preacher, but he saw its value and that is why he started several schools.

If Moody's greatest error was making God's gift of salvation too broad and he didn't quote the original Greek and Hebrew enough, then God give us more preachers with those errors!

In the early church there were masses of people saved. In the past few hundred years we have seen masses turn to the Lord.

But now it seems some say that was wrong. Calvinism dictates that only ones and twos may be won, so these preachers of the past must be wrong. They didn't preach enough hell fire and brimestone so they must have been wrong.

All I know is going back to the times of Moody, Bob Jones, JRR and others salvation was preached, souls were saved, churches were started, missionaries were sent out and communities were changed.

Now we are getting away from the principles these men stood on, fewer and fewer are getting saved, churches are closing, men entering the ministry are fewer than ever and communities are become more and more depraved.

Maybe the problem is that calvninists and armenianists spend so much time fighting each other. While this grand debate goes on souls are dying.

Well, hopefully we'll not be so caught up in this controversy that we'll miss the trumpet call when the Lord returns...

Excellent post, mnw, and I completely agree.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rippon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Preachers and soul winners , anxious to secure decisions and results , do not like to think of the controlling will of a free , sovereign God , whose almighty power cannot be controlled , yet whose power must be active if a sinner truly comes to christ . Modern evangelical Christians think clearly only in terms of cause and effect : certain methods and actions must produce certain results . This carnal earnestness , this zeal not according to wisdom , this proud determination to make a controlled business of soul-winning is intolerant of God's free sovereignty .
There is , of course , verbal references to God's grace , the work of the Holy Spirit , and the need of Christ , but there is in the end no waiting upon God in dependence . Busy soul-winners and evangelists bustle around , acting as if somehow God's power is under their control .

</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!

 

[J.D.]

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

then God give us more preachers with those errors!

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

All I know is going back to the times of Moody, Bob Jones, JRR and others salvation was preached, souls were saved, churches were started, missionaries were sent out and communities were changed.

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

Now we are getting away from the principles these men stood on, fewer and fewer are getting saved, churches are closing, men entering the ministry are fewer than ever and communities are become more and more depraved.

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.

Maybe the problem is that calvninists and armenianists spend so much time fighting each other. While this grand debate goes on souls are dying.

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?

Well, hopefully we'll not be so caught up in this controversy that we'll miss the trumpet call when the Lord returns...

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.

 

[Bluefalcon]

Originally posted by Rippon:
In another sermon ....... Our message is 'good tidings , which shall be to all people ; for unto you is born this day a Savior , which is Christ the Lord . ' All people , this Savior is proffered to you . Accept Him , and God will accept you ; reject Him , and God will reject you . Your eternal destiny depends on your refusal or otherwise to accept the proferred Savior . The case is simply one of giving and taking . God gives ; I receive . We must , then , first of all know Christ as our Savior . "

Wise and proverbial words which I dare not speak against.

 

[mnw]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Who will miss the trumpet call? The elect?

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

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

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...

 

[Calvibaptist]

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.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by mnw:
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.

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!

 

[J.D.]

If my error is to tell the Gospel to the unelected, then so be it.

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

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

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.

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

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 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.

 

[mnw]

Did history begin when the men of this era were born?

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

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).

Thank God for them, they were used of the Lord.

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.

I would submit that the problem today is not entirely calvnism, "armenianism" so called, or any singular problem.

If someone prays a genuine prayer of repentance putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, then where is the issue?

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.

So the first awakening with the calvinists was fine, but the second awakening with the not so calvninistic was not okay?

We have churches that are two-thirds full of unbelievers and now you want to blame Calvinism!

(Is that an accurate census?)

No, I want to stress I have no particular axe to grind with calvnism in general. What I put in my last post was more extreme than I wanted to sound. As one has stated, the old Adam sometimes makes an appearance.

What irritates me is when all the wrongs of the world from the dawn of time is placed at the feet of anyone who is not a proclaimed 5 point calvinist.

What irritates me is when every thing is made to revovle around calvinism.

What irritates me most of all is when I allow myself to get into these discussions, I end up arguing with a brother or sister and I should know better!

I'll try to be more gracious in my posts... more light than heat.

 

[J.D.]

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.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by mnw:
If someone prays a genuine prayer of repentance putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, then where is the issue?

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.

So the first awakening with the calvinists was fine, but the second awakening with the not so calvninistic was not okay?

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.

(Is that an accurate census?)

Not really! Just typical exageration to make a point.

No, I want to stress I have no particular axe to grind with calvnism in general. What I put in my last post was more extreme than I wanted to sound. As one has stated, the old Adam sometimes makes an appearance.

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.

What irritates me is when all the wrongs of the world from the dawn of time is placed at the feet of anyone who is not a proclaimed 5 point calvinist.

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

What irritates me is when every thing is made to revovle around calvinism.

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.

What irritates me most of all is when I allow myself to get into these discussions, I end up arguing with a brother or sister and I should know better!

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.

 

[mnw]

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.

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
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.

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

 

[EdSutton]

OP question:

Any thoughts on the famous evangelist ? Dwight L. Moody ( 1837-1899 ) was a friend of Spurgeon's . CHS let him occupy his pulpit several times . Yet they were poles apart theologically . I have often wondered why Spurgeon did not exercise more discernment about having Moody preach in his pulpit . Also , why did he show open admiration for Moody's form of evangelicism which was so different from his model preacher, George Whitefield ?

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

Ed

 

[Rippon]

I had asked the question also about non-Calvinist pastors allowing Calvinists to preach from their pulpits . Have any of you avowed non-Calvinists ever invited a Calvinist to preach at your church ? If so , did you attach conditions ?

 

[J.D.]

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.

 

[Rippon]

I know what you mean J.D. I have a Presbyterian friend here who goes to an Arminian church . The pastor refers to Don often in his sermons . " Well, Don would disagree with what I'm about to say next ... " . The pastor is not intentionally pugnacious , but it still rankles . BTW , Don is a very committed Christian . I know his father too . The pickins' are slim here in Korea if you want to worship at a Calvinistic Church . My home church in the States is Calvinistic , but here ... My pastor just started on Ephesians and things are looking up .

 

[Rippon]

Since nobody has come forward ...I will continue with John Kennedy's words .

SAVING FAITH

What about saving fath ? It must be realized that there is a faith which can be exercised without the aid of the Holy Spirit . But it is not the faith that is ' to the saving of the soul '. That is expressly declared to be ' of the operation of God ', and requires the working of his mighty power which he wrought in Christ , when he raised him from the dead . Saving faith , too, uniquely rests upon the person of Christ . It does so , not merely believing in the historical figure of Christ as found in the gospels , but also by apprehending him as a living , present Saviour , made real by the Holy Spirit . It actually receives Him as a living ,present person who is Jesus of Nazareth , the Lord Christ . It embraces him . It is not merely belief in the facts about Christ ; it is also trust in the person who is presented in the gospel record . Faith implies unreserved dependence upon the grace of God offered in Christ . It is not merely taking advantage of a convenient ground of hope . It is an acknowledgement of being justly condemned and helpless at the footstool of the divine throne . It is the acceptance of salvation from the hands of the sovereign God ' to the praise of the glory of his grace '. Who knows best about the grace of the gospel , the man who thinks he is saved by grace through a faith is not of himself but is the gift of God ? Did Jesus hide this in his preaching in Luke 4 , John 3 , and John 6 ? It was in his preachig in John 6 that he said , ' No man can come to me except the Father hath sent me , draw him :
3. No care is taken to show how God is glorified in the salvation of a sinner through the death of Christ . The modern gospel is a gospel primarily meant for man's relief and convenience . How salvation is ' to the praise of God's glory the preacher is not careful to show , nor is the sinner anxious to know .
True , much use is made of Christ's death . But it is usually referred to only a disposing of sin , so that the sinner is no longer in danger when he believes that Christ died for him . This use of the gospel as primarily an escape for the sinner has been very frequent and effective . Christ's death is declared to be the object of faith . But it is his substitution rather than himself that is made the object of faith . To believe in the substitution is what produces the peace . This serves to remove the sense of danger . But there is often no direct dealing with the person who was the substitute . There is little deep appreciation of the merit of his sacrifice because of the divine glory of the One who was offered . It is not faith in the work of Christ that saves , but faith in Christ himself who accomplished the work . This is the faith that saves .

[ April 07, 2006, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: Rippon ]

 

[Rippon]

Any thoughts on the famous evangelist ? Dwight L. Moody ( 1837-1899 ) was a friend of Spurgeon's . CHS let him occupy his pulpit several times . Yet they were poles apart theologically . I have often wondered why Spurgeon did not exercise more discernment about having Moody preach in his pulpit . Also , why did he show open admiration for Moody's form of evangelicism which was so different from his model preacher, George Whitefield ?

In a book I have by Alan Sell called " Theology In Turmoil " he cites a J.Opie .

...Moody offered an enthusiastic but comfortable moralism . The sovereign God of American religious awakenenings before the Civil War had become by the gilded Age a friendly personal counselor . Sin , once a truly awful condition , Victorian gentility gentility translated into the social improprieties of laziness , drunkedness and poverty . Grace ... [now] provided for the pleasantries of self-confidence , comfort , and prosperity . Conversion , once the most shattering experience of man's short and harsh life , became the voter's judicious right to change party affiliation . Moody's revivalism reached its climax ... in sentiment .

Another thread was started the other day on D.L.Moody, so I thought I'd show folks this golden oldie from more than 4 years ago.