Anti Invitationalism Gone To Seed?

I am willing to debate the following proposition and occupy the affirmative:

"The Scriptures teach that it is proper for sinners to ask Christ to come into their hearts and lives for salvation or to give their hearts to Christ."

I have been affirming that those who decry these two gospel invitations are either Hyper Calvinists or mighty close to it. Their declamations are at least the kinds made by Hyper Calvinists such as the Hardshell Baptists.

One of the things that is characteristic of the Hyperists is their denunciations against invitations that invite sinners to "Give your heart to the Lord" or to "Ask Jesus into your heart or life" to become a Christian. Notice how one writer, calling himself a Christian and a bible believer, ridicules this type of gospel invitation.

"Do we not realize that such a practice is found NOWHERE in the entire Bible? Is there ANY example of someone "asking Jesus into their heart" (or similar) to become a Christian in the book of Acts? NO - NOT EVEN ONE. The book of Acts is full of literally thousands of people becoming born-again Christians. And we are often told exactly what these people did. But there is no record of any of them doing anything like "asking Jesus into their heart" to be saved." (Andrew Strom)

http://www.revivalschool.com/ask.html

I will shortly demonstrate just how scriptural are the two types of invitations which are often decried by today's "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" Baptists. But, why does this brother limit us to the Book of Acts for authority for these two invitations? But, I will show how the invitations and commands in the Book of Acts regarding conversion do not contradict this idea or kind of invitation. But, before I do that, I wish to notice a couple other sources from the internet to give the reader a sampling of the kind of hullabaloo that these Hyperists are raising relative to these two kinds of invitations.

One writer even had a web site where she titled her writing - "Why NOT To Ask Jesus Into Your Heart"! (Carol Brooks)

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/dont_ask_jesus_into_your_heart.html

Another writer has an article titled - "Ten Reasons To Not Ask Jesus Into Your Heart"! (By Todd Friel) All I can say to start with is- unbelievable!

He writes:

"Brace yourself for this one: with very few if any exceptions, anyone who asked Jesus into their hearts to be saved...is not. If you asked Jesus into your heart because you were told that is what you have to do to become a Christian, you were mis-informed.

If you have ever told someone to ask Jesus into their heart (like I have), you produced a false convert. Here is why.

1. It is not in the Bible. There is not a single verse that even hints we should say a prayer inviting Jesus into our hearts. Some use Rev. 3:20. To tell us that Jesus is standing at the door of our hearts begging to come in. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." There are two reasons that interpretation is wrong. The context tells us that the door Jesus is knocking on is the door of the church, not the human heart. Jesus is not knocking to enter someone's heart but to have fellowship with His church. Even if the context didn't tell us this, we would be forcing a meaning into the text (eisegesis). How do we know it is our heart he is knocking at? Why not our car door? How do we know he isn't knocking on our foot? To suggest that he is knocking on the door of our heart is superimposing a meaning on the text that simply does not exist. The Bible does not instruct us to ask Jesus into our heart. This alone should resolve the issue, nevertheless, here are nine more reasons."

Is all that not unbelievable coming from a professing Christian? No, Revelation 3: 20 DOES justify the gospel invitation to let Christ inside the heart and life! I wrote on this recently and here is what I said.

Another saying that many Hyper Calvinists make against what they perceive as improper gospel invitations is to say - "it is not scriptural to call upon sinners to open their heart's door to Christ." How they can say this in view of Revelation 3: 20 is amazing.

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

When these people are confronted with these words of invitation, they rarely give up on their stubborn opposition to such kinds of gospel invitations. So, they attempt to explain the verse as either 1) not applying at all to unregenerate souls, but only to regenerate ones, or 2) else say that the invitation is not to open the door of the heart but rather that of the church.

But, such "argumentation" only belies a stubborness against the belief that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation." Every Hardshell Hyperist "interprets" this invitation as applying only to born again people.

Two rebuttal points are to be made in regard to this "interpretation." First, how anyone can legitimately say that such adjectives as "wretched, miserable, poor, and blind, and naked" can be said to be appropriate for only the born again children of God, is truly amazing. It is no "argument" at all either for the Hyperists to say that this letter, and these words, are addressed to church members. This proves nothing unless it can be proven that churches are always composed only of those who are truly regenerate. Clearly the invitation is to those in the visible assembly who did not have Christ within them supping and dwelling with them!

Secondly, how the Hyperist can eliminate the heart from this invitation is also bewildering. The church is the people, and Christ's knocking to get within the church is no different from his desire to get inside their hearts. Why is the Hyperist so intent in not making this door the door to the heart and soul?

Our writer continues:

"2. Asking Jesus into your heart is a saying that makes no sense. What does it mean to ask Jesus into your heart? If I say the right incantation will He somehow enter my heart? Is it literal? Does He reside in the upper or lower ventricle? Is this a metaphysical experience? Is it figurative? If it is, what exactly does it mean? While I am certain that most adults cannot articulate its meaning, I am certain that no child can explain it. Pastor Dennis Rokser reminds us that little children think literally and can easily be confused (or frightened) at the prospect of asking Jesus into their heart."

What rantings! And such as are unworthy of a professing Christian! This brother thinks that because some sinners do not know exactly what they are doing when they are asked to receive Christ into their hearts, therefore it should not be done! Yet, he believes that sinners must be called upon to repent, believe, and to trust Christ. But, have there not been many sinners who have likewise thought they have done this when they knew not the meaning of what they are doing? Does this brother not know that "the abuse of a thing does not make the thing itself wrong"? Does he not know what is meant by the old saying - "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater"?

Is this brother not being stubbornly silly? If someone is giving an invitation, in Christ's stead, ought he not to explain to the sinner what it means? Yes! But the same is true with believing, repenting, and trusting Christ! Does this brother not know that the Greek word "cardia" means the inner thoughts or mind?

Anyway, he continues with his ranting diatribe, saying:

"3. In order to be saved, a man must repent (Acts 2:38). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of repentance.

That my friends is truly a non sequiter! Asking Jesus into one's heart absolutely does involve repentance! If some preacher is giving such an invitation and has not made that point clear, then yes, such an invitation will not be as beneficial. Surely! Brother, Jesus entering a man's heart will produce repentance!

The brother says further:

"4. In order to be saved, a man must trust in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of faith."

Same response as above!

He continues:

"5. The person who wrongly believes they are saved will have a false sense of security. Millions of people who sincerely, but wrongly, asked Jesus into their hearts think they are saved but struggle to feel secure. They live in doubt and fear because they do not have the Holy Spirit giving them assurance of salvation."

How has he shown that giving invitation to sinners to receive Christ into their hearts by faith PRODUCES such false professors? At least any more than Christ taught would make false professions, even by proper invitations, in the parable of the sower?

He continues:

"6. The person who asks Jesus into his heart will likely end up inoculated, bitter and backslidden. Because he did not get saved by reciting a formulaic prayer, he will grow disillusioned with Jesus, the Bible, church and fellow believers. His latter end will be worse than the first."

How does he know this? Why is he so opposed to the idea of sinners receiving Christ into their hearts? And, what is the difference between telling sinners to "receive Christ into your heart" versus telling them to "ask (or invite) Christ into your heart"?

He continues:

"7. It presents God as a beggar just hoping you will let Him into your busy life. This presentation of God robs Him of His sovereignty."

Brother, God is presented as begging, pleading, and urging sinners! Have we been reading the same bible? In any case, some of the scriptures to follow, at the end of this rebuttal, demonstrate the fact that Christ and the Spirit pleads with sinners in the gospel and by his servants speaking on behalf of God.

He says further:

"8. The cause of Christ is ridiculed. Visit an atheist web-site and read the pagans who scoff, "How dare those Christians tell us how to live when they get divorced more than we do? Who are they to say homosexuals shouldn't adopt kids when tens of thousands of orphans don't get adopted by Christians?" Born again believers adopt kids and don't get divorced. People who ask Jesus into their hearts do. Jesus gets mocked when false converts give Him a bad name."

Yes, hypocrites do harm the gospel witness. So, what does this prove? Has he proven that such gospel invitations as he condemns produces more hypocrites than the seed sown in the parable?

He says further:

"9. The cause of evangelism is hindered. While it is certainly easier to get church members by telling them to ask Jesus into their hearts, try pleading with someone to make today the day of their salvation. Get ready for a painful response. "Why should I become a Christian when I have seen so called Christians act worse than a pagan?" People who ask Jesus into their hearts give pagans an excuse for not repenting."

That latter statement is exactly the kind that we would expect godless atheists to say! Ironic is it not? But notice how our brother goes even further in his final "reason" for not asking or commanding sinners to receive Christ into their hearts.

He says:

"10. Here is the scary one. People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. How tragic that millions of people think they are right with God when they are not. How many people who will cry out, "Lord, Lord" on judgment day will be "Christians" who asked Jesus into their hearts? So, what must one do to be saved? Repent and trust. ( Heb.6:1) The Bible makes it clear that all men must repent and place their trust in Jesus Christ. Every man does have a "God shaped hole in their hearts," but that hole is not contentment, fulfillment and peace. Every man's heart problem is righteousness. Instead of preaching that Jesus fulfills, we must preach that God judges and Jesus satisfies God's judgment...if a man will repent and place his trust in Him."

"If you are reading this and you asked Jesus into your heart, chances are good you had a spiritual buzz for a while, but now you struggle to read your Bible, tithe, attend church and pray. Perhaps you were told you would have contentment, purpose and a better life if you just ask Jesus into your heart. I am sorry, that was a lie. If you have been preaching that people should ask Jesus into their hearts, I beg you to stop immediately. You will give an account for all the souls you have led astray. Learn how to share the gospel simply, effectively, biblically, the way Jesus did."

http://forum.cmcentral.com/index.php?act=ST&f=0&t=46909

Cannot my Hyperist brethren see where their ridiculing of gospel invitations has created the kind of spirit that this brother manifests? He says that all are lost who ask Christ into their hearts! Unbelievable!

"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." (Luke 11: 9, 10 NIV)

"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." (John 1: 11, 12 NIV)

"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." (Acts 10: 43 NIV)

"As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain." (II Corinthians 6: 1 NIV)

"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Galatians 3: 2 NIV)

"He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." (Galatians 3: 14 NIV)

"So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him." (Colossians 2: 6 NIV)

"But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life." (I Timothy 1: 16 NIV)

"If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does." (James 1: 5-8 NIV)

"When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (James 4: 3 NIV)

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord." (I Peter 3: 15 NIV)

"Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul..." (Deuteronomy 11: 18 NIV)

"Thou hast given him his heart's desire, and hast not withholden the request of his lips. Selah." (Psalm 21: 2 NIV)

"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." (Psalm 27: 8 NIV)

"Delight thyself also in the LORD: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart." (Psalm 37: 4 NIV)

"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." (Psalm 51: 10 NIV)

"Trust in him at all times; ye people, pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for us. Selah." (Psalm 62: 8 NIV)

"...your heart shall live that seek God." (Psalm 69: 32 NIV)

"My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways." (Proverbs 23: 26 NIV)

"And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man." (Mark 7: 18-20 NIV)

"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12: 34 NIV)

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 18: 37 NIV)

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16: 14 NIV)

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (I Corinthians 2: 9 NIV)

"Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (II Corinthians 1: 22 NIV)

"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Galatians 4: 6 NIV)

"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith..." (Ephesians 3: 17 NIV)

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts..." (Colossians 3: 15 NIV)

I say all these verses basically say "receive Christ into your heart" or "let Christ rule in your heart." Do they not?

Where Is This Book?

A few months ago I asked any readers if they could help me to locate some lost books by leading Hardshell founding fathers. I have also queried as to why some of these important works have been "lost in oblivion"? For instance, I have discovered that Elder John Clark, a leading Hardshell of the 1800's wrote a lot of material that no one seems to have felt the need of preserving as they have other writings by men like Wilson Thompson and Gilbert Beebe. Why have Elder Clark's writings been lost? I have my ideas about why, but will save that judgment until I am proved correct.

I intend to do my best to find these "lost writings," especially by Elder Clark. It is my hope to be able to travel to distant libraries this year to locate some of these books.

I ran across a book written by Elder Clark and I wonder if any of my Hardshell readers have heard of the book or know where it might be found. I am also hoping to find the Editorial Volumes of the paper he edited from 1854 till about 1888 called "Zion's Advocate."

It is a book written by Elder Clark in 1873 (a crucial time period in the history of the Hardshells) and titled - "Exposure of heresies propagated by some "old school Baptists," from their own publications: showing their doctrines to be not according to the Gospel of Christ." It was printed in Front Royal, Va., and published at the office in Front Royal.

At least this is what the following web site says. I hope I can get this book from the a cooperating library and read what Elder Clark wrote.

http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/21987003

Amen Brother Piper!

"Today we end our series on regeneration—the biblical teaching about the reality of being born again. We’re ending on the ground. On the street. In the car. At Dunn Brothers. In the back yard. In school. At work. Over lunch. On the phone. On Facebook and My Space. And text messaging. And Skyping. And blogging. And airplanes. And a hundred ordinary conversations. We’re ending with personal evangelism—an old-fashioned commitment in new contexts for the sake of new birth in thousands of spiritually dead people for the glory of Jesus Christ."

"Born Again Through the Gospel"

"Last week we reaffirmed the biblical truth of 1 Peter 1:23, “You have been born again...through the living and abiding word of God”—followed by the explanation in verse 25: “This word is the good news that was preached to you.” In other words, God brings about the new birth through the gospel—the good news that God sent his Son into the world to live a perfect life, die for sinners, absorb the wrath of God, take away our guilt, provide the gift of righteousness, and give eternal joy through faith alone apart from works of the law.

People are born again through hearing that news, and never born again without it. “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). So when we asked, what should we do to help people be born again, the biblical answer was plain: Tell people the good news from a heart of love and a life of service.

Now today what I hope to do is underline that main point with a couple new texts and then give you a collection of encouragements and practical helps."

"Then look at the solution to this condition of blindness and perishing. Verse 6: “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” This is a description of the new birth, even though that term is not used. The God who created light in the beginning does the same thing in the human heart. Only the light this time is not physical light, but “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” Or as verse 4 calls it “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God.”

He causes the human heart to see the truth and beauty and worth of Christ—the glory of Christ. And when we see him for who he really is, we receive him for who he is. And to as many as received him he gave power to become the children of God (John 1:12). That’s what we want for our children—at six or sixteen or twenty-six—and for our parents and our spouses and our neighbors and colleagues and our friends at school. We want the light to shine in their hearts so they see and receive Christ. We want them to be born again.

Then, third, look at the human means God uses to make this happen. Verse 5: “What we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” Paul’s role was to proclaim Christ from a heart of love and a life of service. That proclamation is called the gospel in verse 3: “Even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.” It’s the gospel that spiritually blind people can’t see and spiritually deaf people can’t hear. So our answer to the question, “What should we do to help people be born again?” is: Tell them the good news of Christ from a heart of love and a life of service." (desiringgod.org)

I have immensely enjoyed this series by Brother Piper! He certainly is a true Calvinist, albeit not of the Hyperist variety! My "Reformed" and Hardshell brethren would do well to listen to Piper!

More Examples of Hyperism?

"If you tell them that there is no such thing as decisional regeneration they will call you a heretic." (abclay)

In writing to agree with such statements by brother Clay, Todd Pruitt writes:

"In fact, as I have preached from such passages as John 3 I have lamented to my congregation that I grew up being taught that the new birth was the result of something we do. "If you want to be born again then do these three things." What a distortion of Jesus own words! Instead, I preach to them that the only reason we repent and have faith is because of the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. Your point is important because Southern Baptists will proclaim "amazing grace" all day but ultimately make man the decisive factor in his salvation."

http://www.founders.org/blog/?ext-ref=comm-sub-email

It is these kinds of remarks that are doing more, I believe, to hinder any "resurgence" of genuine Calvinism (of the kind Spurgeon believed and taught) rather than promoting or 'recovering' it! It is truly ironic! These comments were made in the "Founders Blog," the blog of Tom Ascol. They followed my comments there and which I have posted here in the Baptist Gadfly.

First, most of the "Reformed Baptists" and "Founder's" friendly churches, it seems to me, are not promoting or recovering Calvinism but Hyper Calvinism. If one would simply take time to collect all the anti invitation writings and all the writings condemning the calling upon people to be saved, or born again, and other such writings, written by these brethren, it would become apparent that they are nothing like Spurgeon and the real Old Baptists of the order of Bunyan, Kiffin, and Keach, etc. If these Calvinists were alive today I am sure that their evangelistic appeals to the lost would likewise be ridiculed by the "Reformers" in the Southern Baptist churches.

So, what is wrong with what the brethren wrote above?

First, it shows how they have drifted towards Hyper Calvinism. It shows they accept ideas about regeneration and the new birth that is exactly what the Hardshell Baptists teach. If you go to a Hardshell Baptist Church you will hear all kinds of statements like those made by brothers Clay and Todd above.

It shows that these brethren do not understand how salvation is both conditional and unconditional, a major misunderstanding among Hyper Calvinists.

I have a series planned for my ongoing book on "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" where I plan to deal with this important issue. Our Baptist forefathers taught that regeneration was both conditional and unconditional, although in different senses. They certainly did not believe that the sinner did not act at all in his resurrection and rebirth! They certainly did not exclude the sinner coming to a decision about Christ in that work!

Will the Hyperists tell us that they believe there is no decision for Christ in regeneration? That seems to be exactly what they are saying!

The passage that says - "thy people will be willing in the day of thy power" has always been interpreted by Baptists, Calvinist or otherwise, to be words describing the regeneration and rebirth of the sinner. Will they now say that to preach this is to preach what they decry as "decisional regeneration"?

Believing is a decision! Have we forgotten that? Will these Hyperists become full blown Hardshells and say that there is no decisions made by the sinner in regeneration?

Do these brethren actually believe that the sinner does not "DO" anything in regeneration? Who is born or who comes forth from the grave of sin? Does God do this for them? Is God born or resurrected? Who is it that "comes forth"? Is "coming forth" not activity? Who believes and repents, God or the sinner?

Besides, is not "coming to Christ" equated with "believing in Christ"? And, is not "believing" in Christ not the same as "deciding" for Christ?

If one will look at some of the chapters in my book, especially in that series "Addresses to the Lost," he will see that the scriptures are filled with gospel commands and invitations that call upon the sinner to "make himself a new heart," and to "come forth from the dead," and such like.

The problem with the Hyperist is that he wants to make the sinner wholly passive in regeneration. I also plan to have a series dealing with this issue also, perhaps in the series on "Paradigm Problems."

I would ask the Hyperist in the "Reformed" camp, just as I do the Hardshells, - "when Christ calls men to come to him, is he not calling upon them to be saved and born again?"

In closing, let me say that the error of Arminians, in the Southern Baptist churches, in giving "invitations" (often after the order of the "Campbellites" with their "five step plan"), is not in what they say, but in what they generally do not say. They would do well to follow Spurgeon just as well as the Hyperist.

Spurgeon would call upon the dead to live, to decide for Christ, but he would always warn the sinner to always look to Christ for the power to do as the gospel demands. This is where many Arminian Baptists are erring perhaps. Yes, command the sinner to do! But, tell him also that he cannot do without Christ. That is a method that truly "works"!

Tom Ascol's Reply

The following is the comment that Tom Ascol left for my on the Founders blog together with my reply to him and to the blog.

Stephen:

"The Gospel that needs to be recovered is the one that works; the one that results in sinners being saved. Whatever "Gospel" has resulted in populating Southern Baptist churches with a vast majority of members who show no signs of spiritual life needs to be jettisoned. Wouldn't you agree? This is not a Calvinism issue. It is a salvation issue. If you are content to preach a "Gospel" that apparently only converts at a 25-35% rate of "professions," you can have it. I want the real deal, and I believe that most serious, thinking Southern Baptist pastors do, too."

Here is my reply:

Dear Brother Tom:

"Thanks for your reply. I will attempt an answer to your questions.

First, I think we have a great example in “what works” in the life and ministry of Charles Spurgeon. Would you not agree? Spurgeon had a great deal more fear of the damage done by Hyper Calvinism than any done by the semi Calvinists among the Baptists.

Second, I don’t see how the type of evangelistic preaching that is characteristic of the “Reformed Baptist” Calvinist are going to help increase the percentage of truly regenerate members in the Baptist church. When they spend their preaching time criticizing certain kinds of gospel invitations and alter calls, I don’t see how this is going to increase converts.

Third, I would be interested in knowing how you judge the state of a church relative to how many of its members are regenerated. What is your criteria? Is it church attendance?

Fourth, I would be interested in knowing if Founders Friendly churches, or “Reformed” churches, have a higher percentage of regenerated members? Are there statistics on that also? It seems we would need both sets of data to judge, don’t you think?

Fifth, I would be interested to know why you think that the reason why Southern Baptists have so many unregenerated members is due to them not preaching the gospel. Could it be for another reason? Surely there are other possible reasons. Why do you think it is the basic gospel message that is wrong, instead of discipleship training or other factors?

Sixth, you say that this is not a Calvinism issue and then say it is a salvation issue. This seems to contradict the numerous other writings of the Founders who equate the gospel with Calvinism. Is that not true now? If Calvinism is the gospel, then Calvinism IS the issue, is it not?

Seventh, you say that you believe that “most serious, thinking Southern Baptist pastors” also believe that the reason for the low percentage of regenerate church membership is due to the fact that the basic gospel has not been preached. Where did you get those statistics?

Finally, I wished you had also answered my other questions. I can only assume why you did not choose to answer those questions.

And also, it seems to me that Jesus taught us in the parable of the sower and the seed to expect a low percentage to receive the word with an honest heart and to real salvation."

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Stephen M. Garrett

The New Reformers

My dear friend Bob Ross has reacted the same way that I have relative to a recent post in the "Founder's Journal" and its writer, Tom Ascol, and his remarks about "restoring" the gospel in Southern Baptist churches. I had intended to post my own rebuttal to those remarks and I notice that brother Ross beat me to the gun!

Brother Ross wrote:

"WHAT "GOSPEL" NEEDS TO BE "RECOVERED"?"

"I have been seeing comments for quite awhile by some of the Flounders, such as Tom Ascol, about "recovering the gospel." What "gospel" are they talking about? This kind of talk reminds me of some the past self-proclaimed "restorers," "reformers," and "recoverers" who propagandized in the same manner, and they eventually produced sects and cults. For instance -- Alexander Campbell talked about "restoring the gospel." So did Joe Smith and Herbert W. Armstrong. Now we have the Flounders talking along the same lines. I just wonder what they mean by the "gospel"? Are they talking about their little theological theoretical "system," or are they talking about the Gospel of salvation by faith in Christ, as expounded by the Lord in John 3:14-18?"

"If they are referring to the latter, then why are they wasting time and money on promoting anything other than that Gospel? It seems to me that they are more interested in promoting their theological "system" than in promoting the Gospel of Christ. They appear more interested in making proselytes to their theological "system" than they are interested in winning the lost by means of the Gospel of Christ."

"I believe that the best, surest, and most permanent way to fill a place of Worship is to Preach the Gospel, and to preach it in a natural, simple, interesting, earnest way. The gospel itself has a singularly fascinating power about it, and unless impeded by an unworthy delivery, or by some other great evil, it will win its own way. It certainly did so at the first, and what is to hinder it now?" (Emphasis mostly mine)

http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/

Amen! Bob has surely "hit the nail on the head" with his keen insight and observations.

Here is what Tom Ascol wrote:

"Those who believe the doctrines of grace have reason to be encouraged, and no reason to be complacent. There is a real recovery of the Gospel taking place. Those who are reformed are helping lead the way. We have many reasons to pray and to keep pressing forward in seeking the renewal of existing churches and the planting of new ones. I plan to write more about this in the weeks ahead." Tom

http://www.founders.org/blog/

I left this comment today on the blog. I will be anxious to see what response I get from Tom.

Dear Tom:

"What gospel needs to be "recovered"? Are Southern Baptists, who are not five point Calvinists, not preaching the gospel?

What do you say about what Brother Bob Ross has written about your "pre-faith regeneration" views and your comments here relative to the "reformers" working at "recovering" the gospel among Southern Baptists?

See his writing at the http://www.calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/

Mine also at http://www.baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/

Stephen Garrett"

Take it from someone who came out of Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism, and who is still also a five point Calvinist, that Bob was absolutely correct about these "reformers" resembling the Campbellite, Hardshell, and other "movements" among the Baptists.

Their emphasis on "church planting" is the cover up word for proselyting, after the manner of the Hardshells, for it is their program and agenda to go into Arminian churches and lead off a number who are "converted" to "Calvinism" and who will then form a "church plant." This has been the Hardshell "method" for the past two hundred years and they call it "evangelism." Is this why Southern Seminary invited Hardshell Lasserre Bradley, Jr., to come and visit at the seminary? Is he learning about "church planting" from Bradley? Bradley did the same thing in the 1950's. He took over a Baptist church and began to promote his agenda and it soon led the church to split and Elder Bradley having a new church "planted." Elder Bradley then went to work and began to "plant" other churches in this same manner. Did Reisinger learn from Bradley and the Hardshells? Is Tom taking lessons from Bradley on "church planting"?

Chpt. 72 - The Great Commission VII

In this chapter I want to address the argumentation of the Hardshells on the use of the word "go" in the "Great Commission" as given in Matthew and in Mark. First let me summarize the arguments that are made relative to the use of the word "go."

1. "Go ye" cannot ever include the idea of "sending" others.

2. "Go ye" demands that all those to whom the words are spoken personally go into every part of the world, either as individuals or as a group.

3. "Go ye" cannot refer to any persons other than the original "eleven" to whom the words in Matthew and Mark were addressed.

4. "Go ye" cannot refer to the church as a body.

5. "Go ye" cannot refer to anyone but only to one who is called to preach.

Some of these points I have already touched upon and shown them to be false. I have shown that it is an extreme minority view that says that the words of the "Great Commission" can only apply to the eleven apostles spoken directly to by Christ. I have shown that most Hardshells do not accept this view, believing that others were intended and included in the pronoun "ye" besides the eleven apostles, and so they would reject the "arguments" of the minority that restrict it to the original eleven and that say it was fulfilled by them.

Recall that we showed how Elder J. R. Daily was unable to answer the argument from the Missionary Baptists that reasoned that since "take ye" and "eat ye," although words spoken by Christ to the eleven in the giving of the Lord's Supper, nevertheless included the whole church, so too do the words "go ye" in the "Great Commission" also apply to the entire church.

So with these points in mind, I will now address more particularly the words as given in Matthew, where the words "disciple all the nations" are used.

In the Greek syntax of the passage the word "disciple" (or "teach" or "make disciples") is both the main thought and the main verb. The other verbs, baptize and teach, are the ways one fulfills the command to "disciple" (or 'make disciples'). The main verb is imperative. The verb "go" is not the main verb and is not necessarily imperative. It may be translated "as you go." Thus, we may translate the verse as follows:

"As you go (depart or proceed) into all the world, disciple the nations as you go, and baptizing them as you go, and continue to teach them as you go."

The root word for "go" is poreuō, and according to Strong means:

1) to lead over, carry over, transfer
a) to pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue one's journey
b) to depart from life
c) to follow one, that is: become his adherent
1) to lead or order one's life

The Greek word poreuo itself is from that base root word "peira" and means, according to Strong:

1) a trial, experience, attempt
2) to attempt a thing, to make trial of a thing or of a person
3) to have a trial of a thing
4) to experience, learn to know by experience

On these points a writer says:

"It is a well-known fact that the Greek text of Matthew 28:19-20 does not include an imperative verb that must be translated "go." Instead, the Greek text has a participle from which the command to go has been translated."

"The verb that is translated "go" (if transliterated exclusively from the English alphabet and without accent marks) is "poreuthente" which is an aorist particle of "poreuo." In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Second Edition, Copyright 1958, page 692, the lexicographers make this double-pronged comment:

"The aorist participle (of poreuo) is often used pleonastically to enliven the narrative...in any case the idea of going or traveling is not emphasized."

Referring to the root verb, and not to the aorist participle in particular, also on page 692, the lexicographers describe two other ways that the verb is used: (1) "conduct oneself, live, walk" and (2) "of life generally" (page 692).

Why then is Matthew 28:19 translated "go," as if the Greek New Testament included an explicit command to go? It may be because of the command to disciple all nations. However, the command to disciple all nations may not have been given to command "going."

(http://www.biblical-counsel.org/commiss1.htm)

In Matthew 10: 7 the same word is translated "as you go preach." (KJV) So, I am not translating the word differently than how it was translated elsewhere in the King James Version.

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And AS YOU GO, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 10: 5-7 KJV)

This was the first formal commission that Christ gave to the twelve apostles and the first use of the word "go" in reference to preaching and teaching the gospel. Notice how the first and second uses of the word "go" initiate action, action that had not previously commenced. But, the third use of the word "go" or "as you go" implies that the going has already commenced, and so the appropriate translation of "poreuo" is now "as you go."

Some time had elapsed since the giving of the above limited commission and the giving of the greater commission in Matthew 28. When Christ appears to the eleven, after his resurrection, on the first day of the week, he told them AGAIN to "go," and thus this latter command to "go" could not be a command to begin preaching or teaching, for they were already doing this. They only change in the command to "go" respected the area and people to whom they were to "go." They were no longer restricted to the nation of Israel.

Another meaning of the word poreuo is to "pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue on one's journey."

Another writer commented on the use of "poreuo" in the "Great Commission" as given by Matthew, saying:

"The primary command of the commission, therefore, is to disciple all the nations.

The other three verbs in this passage, all participles, speak to the "how." We must understand the significance of the participles if we are to interpret properly Matthew’s account of the Great Commission. The two participles, baptizontev (baptizontes), "baptizing," and didaskontev (didaskontes), "teaching," are both nominative plural, present tense, active voice. The use of the present tense in participles indicates that the described action takes place simultaneously with the action described by the main verb. Thus, "discipling" (the primary command) would be defined in this passage as, "baptizing people and teaching them to keep the commands of Christ."

In a departure from Classical Greek, the Koine Greek sometimes used a participle as an imperative, although the use is rare. Because these two participles are tied to the main verb, which is in the imperative mood, they would be examples of the imperative use of participles. The remaining participle in this passage is the opening word of verse. This participle, poreuqentev (poreuthentes), is the nominative plural, masculine, aorist participle of poreuomai (poreuomai), meaning, "to go." The aorist tense in a participle indicates that the action described occurs prior to the action of the main verb. So, the "going" precedes the "discipling."

"Of special importance to the topic of this study is the question of what Matthew intended to convey by the use of this participle (poreuthentes). Participles have varied uses in Koine Greek. There are several ways that this participle can be understood. The three most obvious are:

1. As a simple participle, poreuthentes would be translated, "going," or, "as you go," meaning that as one moves about in the natural intercourse of life, he should be discipling those about him, by baptizing them and teaching them to observe the commandments of Christ. This understanding of the participle would imply that if every Christian did this in his own place of residence, then the nations would be discipled.

2. On the other hand, if this participle is translated as a conditional participle, it would be translated, "if you go," or "when you go." The idea being, "Should you go out among the nations, disciple them." This rendering of the participle says nothing about discipling in the routine intercourse of life, nor about a deliberate going forth for the purpose of discipling.

3. The third possibility would be that this participle, like the two other participles in this passage (baptizing and teaching), is imperative. If the participle is so used here, it would be translated, "Go." As an imperative, it would be either a command or an appeal to go to the nations of the world and make disciples of them. This is the manner in which most English versions have rendered this passage.

Thus, verse 19 can be interpreted in two ways:

· as a command to go out for the explicit purpose of discipling nations;
· as a command to be involved in discipling in a "bloom where you are planted" sense (If one stays at home, he should be discipling. If he travels on business or holiday, he should be discipling).

There are two means of determining whether the introductory participle of the commission is simple, conditional, or imperative. These are (1) immediate context and (2) how the eleven disciples responded to the commission.

In all honesty, the context provides little help. Some feel that since the main verb is an imperative, and the two present participles are used in an imperative sense (baptizing them and teaching them), then the opening participle (expressing some sort of going) also must be an imperative.

This assumption, of course, begs the question. The command could begin with discipling (the main verb), rather than going, i.e. Disciple all nations, as you go or when you go, baptizing, etc.

An examination of the response of the eleven, and the Church under their leadership, is more enlightening."

"In both Mark and Matthew, the opening verb of the commission is the participle (poreuthentes). So we face the same question concerning the use of participles in Mark that we face in Matthew: “Is Jesus commanding the eleven to go into all the world, or is He telling them that as they go they are to preach?”"

"In the early to middle 1970's, ministries arose that called all believers to quit their jobs, sell their houses, cars, etc., and travel about the nation and the world evangelizing. In their preaching, some of these groups made sarcastic remarks about Christians "who would rather deliver milk for a dairy than deliver the Gospel to the lost world." In the early 1980's, musician Keith Green caught the vision of missions and began to teach that every Christian is called "to go" unless God calls him "to stay." Such views do not fit either the language of the Great Commission nor the example of the Apostolic Church. Only those Christians called of God to leave their homes and go into world evangelism are to do so. Everyone else is to "study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you" (I Thessalonians 4:11 KJV).

While living this quiet life, each believer is to be witnessing and making disciples of Jesus Christ through relationships."

http://www.doulospress.org/upload/Response_to_the_great_commission.pdf

Some might wonder what importance is all this Greek analysis. However, in the context of what the Hardshells have erroneously taught on the "Great Commission" as respects the word "go," it's importance should be readily seen.

The Hardshells make several arguments on how the word "go" cannot possibly refer to anyone other than those to whom the words were directly addressed, nor to any group who were unable to fulfill it. At least this is the view of those who hold to the "strict view," promoted by Elder Gilbert Beebe, a leading Hardshell founding father, that the "Great Commission" was only given to the eleven apostles and that they fulfilled it. He also took the view that every other evangelist or minister of the gospel received an individualized commission, with specific territory assigned to them in their calling and commissioning.

Others expand this view and allow that the words, though spoken to the eleven, nevertheless included the other apostles, such as Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas. These will say that the "ye" refers to an apostolic "ye." Still others expand the view further and say that every other minister who is called of God is included in the "ye," making it a ministerial "ye." Most of these would either say all ministers are called by Christ in this evangelistic command and need not a special command, as Elder Beebe taught.

But, as I said, the one unifying principle that all the various factious views have in common is their belief that no one is included in the "Great Commission" who is not an apostle or a called and ordained minister of the gospel.

If one insists that the verb "go" placed an imperative on those to whom it was addressed to physically go into all the parts of the globe, then none of the apostles can be said to have fulfilled it. The only apostle to come close to it would be the apostle Paul. Here then is another "paradigm problem" for many Hardshells. If Paul was not addressed, not being one of the "eleven" to whom the words were directly spoken, then how can Hardshells legitimately claim that he helped to fulfill it?

If the verb "go" placed an imperative on all the apostles to each go into all parts of the world, then the apostle James certainly did not fulfill it.

If the verb "go" placed an imperative on every minister in every age, then why are they all NOT doing it? Consider how the Hardshells argue that the word "go" CANNOT refer to every church member for this, they say, would reguire each to go into all the world. Well, why does that same argument not work with those to whom most Hardshells say that it DOES apply? In other words, if the command to "go" applies to every Hardshell minister in every age, which is the traditional majority view, then why do they not SAY that they are each under the command to go into all the world? Further, why have none done it?

If the command means to "physically go," and it applies to every Hardshell minister today, then, by their own argument against it applying to the average church member, they each ought to leave the country where they are now!

Yes, the absurdity that was mentioned earlier, in the citation, about Keith Green's advocating that every church member is to physically go, is the very thing that Hardshells have said was not possible. I certainly do agree with the rebuttal against Green, and also argue that though the "Great Commission" applies to every disciple, it does not require the physical removal of every disciple into all the world, and for them to never "settle down," nor does it require it of every apostle or every gospel minister.

It is the teaching of the bible and of the Baptist denomination, except for the renegade Hardshells, that every disciple is under a calling to tell others of Jesus, and to announce the gospel to all their friends, family, and neighbors. The Hardshells, however, because of their extremism, have been forced to limit the preaching of the gospel to only those who are called of God to be bishops or elders. This was shown from the testimony I cited from the "Mt. Carmel Church Trial."

To show that scripture teaches the proposition that "every disciple is under duty to tell others the good news" is sufficient evidence to overthrow all the Hardshell "argumentation" on the "Great Commission." If other scripture, besides the passages dealing with the "Great Commission," teach that every disciple may "disciple" others, then the Hardshell misunderstanding of the "Great Commission" and of evangelism will be demonstrated.

"For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it]." (Luke 7: 8 AV)

In this passage there is reference to the general "chain of command" that is existent in many organizations, business, military, or otherwise. Who would argue that when a General in the army gives an order to "go" do something, say to a Colonel, that this forbids the Colonel from sending others or calling others to aid in his fulfillment of the order? Only the Hardshell would be forced to argue that the Colonel could not send anyone else to do what the General ordered! Yes, the General may order a Colonel to personally "go" fulfill the order, but the simple order to "go" does not necessarily exclude others being involved in the fulfilling of the order.

The word "go" is often used metaphorically for performing a duty. It is used in this sense when permission is given by saying "go ahead." The word "go" is used in the sense of "proceeding" or of "carrying on." "Go" is a word of warrant for proceeding further in a work. It does not necessarily involve a physical "going."

"What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops." (Matthew 10: 27 KJV)

I would ask every Hardshell to answer this question relative to the words of Jesus - "who is designated by the pronoun 'you' in these words?" If he says it is every disciple, then he has admitted that every disciple has a mission to tell others the gospel, to "disciple" others. And, if it does apply to every disciple, man or woman, adult or child, then all the argumentation of the Hardshells on the "Great Commission" becomes meaningless. The sole reason Hardshells restrict the commandments of the "Great Commission" to only the apostles or the ministry is because they do not believe that every disciple has a commission to share the gospel with others. If he did believe that every disciple was under obligation to spread the gospel, then his attempts to limit the "Great Commission" would be overturned.

The giving of the "Great Commission" was but an enlargement upon prior commands and teachings wherein the Lord Jesus called upon all his followers to be ready to share the good news with others, to go tell the gospel.

Will the Hardshells come forward and tell us that they believe that the words "go tell it on the housetops" can only apply to those in the gospel ministry?

"Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee." (Mark 5: 19 KJV)

Again, will the Hardshells limit these words to only the ordained ministry? Will he be so stubborn not to see that the words "go" and "tell" are words of command that Jesus gave to every disciple?

"So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14: 21-27 KJV)

Again, who in their right mind spiritually could limit these words to only the ordained clergy? To say that only the ministry may "go out into the highways" and give the gracious invitation is truly a great error. To say this is to deny that any person has been made a disciple simply by a disciple! Is that true in the Hardshell church? Have all their converts been made so only through the efforts of the clergy or of the regular disciples also?

"Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest." (Matthew 9: 37, 38 KJV)

Every Hardshell probably has heard this passage preached and have heard it explained in such a way where the "labourers" are interpreted to be gospel ministers. But, this is an error. The elders are not the only ones who are laborers in the vineyard, in the gospel fields, and they are not the only ones who do reaping. Again, it is to be noted how amazing is such a limitation in light of all the historical writing of the Hardshells, wherein they decry what they call "priestcraft." If this view of things is not "priestcraft," then what is it? To limit these passages of scripture to only the ordained clergy is truly priestcraft!

"And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." (Luke 9: 59, 60 AV)

Was Christ calling this new convert to the bishoprick or was he giving a word of instruction and command that is common to every disciple? The Hardshell is forced, due to his aberrant views on the "Great Commission," to say that the words above are not words that Christ says to every new convert.

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city." (Matthew 23: 33, 34 KJV)

"Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute." (Luke 11: 49 KJV)

All the martyrs are witnesses of Jesus, men and women who have a commission to tell others of Christ and the gospel. These verses cannot be limited to only the ordained clergy. By the sending of "wise men" and "scribes," does he refer only to the clergy? Are they the only wise men?

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (John 13: 20 KJV)

If a person rejects the gospel as was told him by a disciple, is he then truly and in fact rejecting Christ and the gospel? Or can one only reject it when it is preached by the Hardshell ministry? If one can reject the preaching of an ordinary disciple, then it is obvious that the ordinary disciple was commissioned by Christ to "disciple" others, including teaching and baptizing them.

"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." (John 17: 16-21 KJV)

These words are applicable to all the elect, to every disciple. They are all "sent" to tell others of the gospel. Paul taught the same thing when he wrote:

"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (II Timothy 2: 2 KJV)

Is this simply ministers teaching other ministers? Are the "faithful men" to be limited to the clergy? This is precisely what the Hardshells are forced into saying due to their extreme views on the "Great Commission" and of their denial that the gospel is to be preached to every person.

"Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not." (Isaiah 6: 8, 9 KJV)

The Hardshells do not promote this spirit of evangelistic zeal among their membership. They do not teach that it is the duty of every disciple to desire to be sent to disciple others. It is therefore no wonder that coldness is the word that characterizes most Hardshell churches, and why they have historically been "wilting on the vine." This will be further substantiated, not only by the scriptures, but by testimony from leading ones among them, like Elder John Watson, who sadly admitted that the Hardshells had "violated their commission."

Born Again Before Faith?

There is no question that the bible teaches that sinners are spiritually born TO faith and TO repentance. But, believing this gives no credance to saying that men are born again BEFORE faith. To say men are born again BEFORE faith is also the same as saying birth is COMPLETED BEFORE faith, and if BEFORE faith, then it is also WITHOUT faith. To say that one is born TO faith, however, does not imply that the birth is a completed act BEFORE faith has been created.

It would be scriptural and proper to say that sinners are born TO LIFE, but this does not imply that the birth exists without the life, or that a birth can exists where there is no immediate LIFE. So too is there no birth where there is no faith and no repentance.

Faith and repentance are essential properties of the spiritual "life" and therefore one cannot be said to be born when he has no faith or repentance, no more than he can be said to be born when he has no life.

Homilies With Hypers

Since I began this blog I have had more private emails and comments than I have public ones. Some of these emails and comments I have made public. Some people have asked that I not mention their names when corresponding with me privately. Certainly their wishes will be honored where it is possible to do so.

I have also, during the past two years, had some interesting experiences with Calvinistic Baptists in my area of North Carolina and these experiences would prove quite interesting, I am sure, to many people. Perhaps I will get a chance to put these all in a book some time.

I get a little perturbed at those Calvinistic Christians who are always belittling certain kinds of gospel invitations that supposed "Arminians" make to the lost when they address them in preaching. One I heard recently, and one I have heard often, is one which says "it is not scriptural to call upon sinners to 'give their hearts to Jesus.'" One writer made such a comment and I wrote to him and cited these words to him - "My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways." (Proverbs 23: 26 KJV)

Another saying that many Hyper Calvinists make against what they perceive as improper gospel invitations is to say - "it is not scriptural to call upon sinners to open their heart's door to Christ." How they can say this in view of Revelation 3: 20 is amazing.

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

When these people are confronted with these words of invitation, they rarely give up on their stubborn opposition to such kinds of gospel invitations. So, they attempt to explain the verse as either 1) not applying at all to unregenerate souls, but only to regenerate ones, or 2) else say that the invitation is not to open the door of the heart but rather that of the church.

But, such "argumentation" only belies a stubborness against the belief that the gospel is the "power of God unto salvation." Every Hardshell Hyperist "interprets" this invitation as applying only to born again people.

Two rebuttal points are to be made in regard to this "interpretation." First, how anyone can legitimately say that such adjectives as "wretched, miserable, poor, and blind, and naked" can be said to be appropriate for only the born again children of God, is truly amazing. It is no "argument" at all either for the Hyperists to say that this letter, and these words, are addressed to church members. This proves nothing unless it can be proven that churches are always composed only of those who are truly regenerate. Clearly the invitation is to those in the visible assembly who did not have Christ within them supping and dwelling with them!

Secondly, how the Hyperist can eliminate the heart from this invitation is also bewildering. The church is the people, and Christ's knocking to get within the church is no different from his desire to get inside their hearts. Why is the Hyperist so intent in not making this door the door to the heart and soul?

All this anti-invitation hullaballoo both Bob Ross and myself have addressed in our writings against the Hyper Calvinists. It is because of these Hyperists saying such things against gospel invitations that we both put together the following test for deciphering whether one is a Hyper Calvinist or not. The following was written by Brother Ross in the calvinist flyswatter (http://www.calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/) and I posted my addition to his list of test items in a comment to that entry. I am sure we can and will likely add to this list. Perhaps some of our readers can help with this.

Brother Ross wrote:

"Clues by which you might recognize a "Hybrid Calvinist" --If you happen to meet someone who makes one or more of the following remarks, it is possible, even probable, that you have met a Hybrid Calvinist. Here are a few clues which point in that direction. If the person says --


"I have never met and don't know a hyper Calvinist."

"I don't follow any man's theology; I just follow the Bible."

"We don't win souls, the Holy Spirit does."

"Invitations to accept Christ are Arminian."

"Charles Finney invented public invitations."

"How can a dead man believe on Christ?"

"Most professions by youngsters are false professions."

"Most of those who respond to invitations are false professions."

"Invitations have corrupted evangelical Christianity."

"Regeneration (new birth) precedes repentance and faith."

"Praying the sinner's prayer is Arminianism."

"Making decisions for Christ is Arminianism."

"I am Reformed, a Monergist, and a 5-point Calvinist."

"My favorite websites and blogs are by Reformed writers."

"I am affiliated with the Founders Ministries."

"I like the writings of R. C. Sproul, Iain Murray, Tom Nettles, Ernest Reisinger, James White, and similar writers."

"I like to attend Reformed conferences on the doctrines of grace."

"I believe in Covenant theology."

"I believe in following the Regulative Principle."

"I believe in the primacy of expository preaching."

"If it were not for baptism, I would be a Presbyterian."


These are a few of the clues which may -- but not necessarily -- indicate that you just might be talking to a Hybrid Calvinist, one who advocates the heresy of "born again before faith."

http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html


I have added these to your list about how to recognize a "hybrid" Calvinistic Baptist.

“A church should have a plurality of elders to rule in it”

“Asking Jesus into your heart is not a gospel invitation”

“I am against ‘easy believism’”

“I am against ‘decisional regeneration’”

“Numbers are not a sign of spiritual growth in a church”

“Losing members can be a sign of a healthy growing church”

“Most Southern Baptists are unregenerate”

“I am for purity in church membership”

“People like Joel Osteen do not make any lasting converts”

“Southern Baptists need to ‘reform’ or be ‘restored’”

“Confession of Christ is equal to baptism”

“Calvinism doesn’t hinder evangelism”

“I am a Reformed Baptist”

“Most of our new members have come from non-Reformed churches”

“Mega churches cannot be healthy”

“Every church needs to be taught the ‘nine marks (points)’”

“Spurgeon was a 5-point Calvinist and yet was a great evangelist”

“‘Altar calls’ are modern and not the biblical or best way to win souls to Christ”

“We don’t believe in order to be born”

“A man’s will and decision has nothing to do with his being born, either naturally or spiritually”

“New converts should not be baptized too quickly”

“Sinners are not won to Christ by oratory or high pressure tactics”

“Sinners must be taught the doctrines of grace in order to properly believe to salvation”

“Belief in the doctrines of grace is the chief proof of regeneration”

“God must first give a man ability to believe before he call upon him to believe”

“Are not infants and idiots regenerated without faith and repentance?”

“God must give one eyes before they can see”

“God must give one ears before they can hear”

“The Book of Acts is the church’s pattern of things is binding as law upon the churches”

“Men must have the law preached to them before the gospel will benefit them”

“Calvinists must all band together to preserve Calvinism”

It is my intention to also address some of the issues involved with those who are seeking to "quietly reform" Baptist churches, especially issues dealing with gospel invitations and with elder rule. Brother Bob Ross is currently writing some very good articles on the "Founder's Movement" and of its insidious beginnings with the work of Ernest Reisinger.

It is my hope also that I can complete my series on "Hardshells and the Great Commission" very soon also. The difficulty is in organizing the relevent material and on editing.

I am looking forward to future writings also on "Hardshell Proof Texts," and on "Paradigm Problems," and in writings regarding the present on going debate among today's Hardshells on the question of "Will All The Elect Hear The Gospel"? I will be looking at what has been written and preached of late, by both sides, in this debate, looking at what both Elder Sonny Pyles and his son, Elder David Pyles, have said on this topic.

Update On Writings

Like my friend brother Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, and the "Calvinist Flyswatter" (http://www.calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/) I too am spending some time at the present watching the Master's golf tournament. For this reason, among others, I am a little behind in my regular writing.

I have spent the past 10 months working of a book called "My Daily Bread" (see link on this page). I began this work in June of last year and am within two months of finishing one year. This has been an exhaustive work and has kept me from completing sections of my book on the "Hardshell Baptist Cult."

The book "My Daily Bread" will be of use to 1) Bible or Sunday School class teachers, and 2) as a daily bible study guide and devotional for serious bible students, and 3) as aids to preachers in sermon development.

It is my intention after one year has been completed (end of June) to work on editing and formatting the book for possible publication by the end of the year.

I also have several other books that I feel burdened to write and I do hope and pray that the Lord will give me the time and means to not only get these present books written and published, but also to get on with the other books that I feel burdened to write.

So, I covet the prayers of all those who read this and my other blog sites.

I want to also in this entry relate a couple things relative to my experience in coming to see the errors of the Hardshells, especially relative to their errors on the new birth.

In the early 1980's, when I finally repented of the errors of Hardshellism, I contacted two people among the Missionary (yet Calvinistic) Baptists and with whom I had previous encounters.

During the late 70's I almost had a debate arranged with Elder Joe Wilson of Calvary Baptist Church in Ashland, Kentucky, the church where brother Ross was a member in the 60's, and a church that sponsored the publication of the paper "The Baptist Examiner," formerly edited by brother Ross and John Gilpen (before brother Wilson became editor). Brother Wilson had called "Primitive Baptists" heretics in that paper in regard to their view of regeneration without the word as a means and I had responded with an invitation for him to debate the topic. The debate never materialized and I am glad it did not.

It was just a few years later, after seeing the truth of means, that I contacted and visited brother Wilson in Ashland and apologized to him and asked his forgiveness. I have always felt glad for having done so.

About the same time, I also contacted brother Ross in Pasadena, Texas by phone. I had only faint memories of brother Ross from the early 60's when dad and our family visited brother Ross in Ashland (where dad and mom had become members temporarily). I remembered how dad took me with him as he and brother Ross went to play a round of golf! For some odd reason, even though I was perhaps only about 8 years old, I recalled being on the golf course with him and dad!

I had also come to know of brother Ross from his various writings. I consider brother Ross to be one of the ablest Baptist theologians living today. Others may have their "Phd's" and other "letters," but none know more than brother Ross, in my opinion, as respects soundness of doctrine, and of Baptist principles. He is certainly a man to be emulated in many things.

I commend brother Ross for his balanced views of things. I think brother Ross truly has the spirit of Charles Spurgeon. If Charles were here today, I have no doubt that he would be highly recommending brother Ross.

After I contacted brother Ross and told him of my conversion from Hardshellism we began a friendship that has lasted till this day and for which I am truly thankful. He is a great teacher in the church of Christ.

Brother Ross and I began to collaborate on writing against the historical and doctrinal errors of the Hardshells. In the early 90's we made a video together concerning the errors of Hardshellism. Since then brother Ross has written a book himself called "The History and Heresies of Hardshellism" and I highly recommend it.

I did not begin my work on the Hardshell book in the 90's however. I really did not feel led to do so until just a couple years ago. Since then I have felt a passion to get this work completed. I know that it is a long exhaustive book already, but when completed it will be (hopefully) a book that will document much historical information on the Hardshells and will be a means to help others either come out of Hardshellism or be kept from it.

I do hope to complete my series soon on "The Great Commission" and go on to other important topics that also need to be addressed. I already have many chapters prepared and planned for the completion of this book and I trust the good Lord will allow me to finish them.

I want to thank all those who have been reading and for all the comments, private emails, and other communication from Hardshells, and former Hardshells, and of others who are interested in this cult.

I have come to discover that there are elements of Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism now being promulgated by some in the "Reformed Baptist" camp, men such as James White, and some connected with the "Founder's Movement." So, this work will hopefully be of benefit to people who are not formally Hardshells, but who nevertheless are mighty close to being so.

So, hopefully, in the coming months I will be getting near to completing these first two books of mine. I do hope that they will be of benefit to the body of Christ. Stay tuned and if you have a comment to leave, please feel free to do so.

In closing, let me say that my challenge to debate the Hardshells still stands. But, at this point, I really do not expect any to take up the challenge. When anyone of them takes a close look at what I have written in this book, they will no doubt not want to do anything but "tuck the tail in and run"! Just like James White and others in the "Reformed camp" have not wanted to debate brother Ross on their error of born again before and without faith.