Pensees: Going to the FBFI

Isn’t this the same guy who complained that Calvinism kills people’s evangelism?

Hey Bob,
Thanks for the encouragement concerning this matter. Yesterday I witnessed to a guy at the Home Depot and it got ugly. He was an angry liberal who didn’t believe the Bible, but at the end of the encounter, at least he was warned. I can’t “effectively” or “effectually” get a person to repent and change his sin darkened mind. I walked away from the guy, went to my car and my heart was grieved for him. But it made me want to find a sinner again ASAP to tell the good news!

Yo Bob:

I’m on a 2000 mile motorcycle ride with two of my brothers, my two sons and a nephew through West Virginia and surrounding states. Can’t say I’d rather be in IL but I appreciate your comments since I’m out of the loop for much of this.

Steve

Bob, your post contradicts itself.

you said… “he himself had only led one person to the lord in the last two years.”

and then… “the speaker himself confessed that he hadn’t led someone to the Lord in several years.”

It’s nice to use hyperbole to make your slanted point, but it may be more effective when you don’t contradict your own self.

Also, your point on gospel power…

The speaker knows something about gospel power from his previous ministry in Concord, NH…

900 baptized in his 18 years there.
An attendance that grew from 275 to 1000 in an area that’s 65 % Roman Catholic, and known as the “graveyard of fundamentalism.”
A church that is 70% first generation Christians.

Praise God for that gospel power! I’ve been there recently, Bob. The place is vibrant, and passionate about the gospel.

I appreciated his openness, and his tender heart that was so apparent last night as he wept during his sermon.
But then again I know you won’t listen to me anyways.

I’m not as Calvinisic as you.

Bob,
Why are you going? It doesn’t seem to me from your recent posts that the FBFI is really your cup of tea. Still holding onto hope of a board nomination? :)

Chad, really? You’re going to snark at “two” versus “several”? I think Bob’s point is that it’s NOT about the numbers. It’s a game we all play: If a ministry that we are aligned with is doing well numerically, it’s “the power of the gospel.” If a ministry we’re not aligned with and a little frightened of is doing well, it’s “using emotionalism and worldliness” or “sugar coating” or “easy-believism.”

I’m not sure how many times the speaker weeps during the service changes the analysis.

My husband saw you at the FBFI this morning-not sure you know who he is. We were both REALLY surprised you were there. David hasn’t been to the national conference in 8 years and was really motivated to go because of all the hoopla going on. We are anxiously awaiting any post regarding your conversation with Phelps-enlighten us!

Lazarus was raised from the dead by Jesus’ words. We can only be raised from the dead unto life by God through the power of His Word, the Gospel. If God does not choose to raise the man then he will remain dead/loving sin. (He will not treasure Jesus as he must.) He will then go to Hell.

Our command is to spread the Gospel message and leave the results up to our Lord.

I am in the book of Jeremiah.

I would not have stood up either. That kind of stuff is just manipulation. None of us have ever given the gospel as much or as well as we should. That’s not an excuse to not give it or to give it shoddily, but praise the Lord that we have this treasure in earthen vessels that the power may be of God and not of us.

It must be nice to feel so free to comment on sermons that you were not present to hear or understand the context in which they are presented. Your liberty must be exhilarating.

Jeremy, I would be interested in hearing the sermon. I hope there will be a link somewhere so that I can hear brother Phelps.

On the invitation aspect, I would have put the emphasis on the sharing the gospel - not on how many people one has “won to Christ”. Secondly, I have been in service invitations where there has been the asking of people to stand . . . but it was on the topic of giving . . . “stand if you are giving a $1,000” . . . “stand if you are giving $500” . . . and on down.

Hmmm . . .

Just being honest, I have never felt the liberty to stand in any of those types of invitations, though I take very seriously the “standing” of Romans 14:10.

And btw, it is good to see your interaction, brother Jeremy. And blessings to you and your ministry, friend.

From the spud in Idaho,
et

FWIW, some of the messages (Phelps, Hartog, and Bauder) are already available on sermonaudio.com. It doesn’t look like Dr. Minnick’s message is up yet.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=bethelministries

Bob,

I’m so glad I found your blog, so that I can learn new words, like “snark” and “snarky.”

Warm regards,
G. N. Barkman

It must be nice to feel so free to comment on sermons that you were not present to hear or understand the context in which they are presented. Your liberty must be exhilarating.

Jeremy,

It’s been a while. I trust all is well with you and your family.

To your comment, I don’t think fundamentalism has ever required personal presence as a preconditions for commenting on the accuracy or orthodoxy of a matter. For instance, fundamentalists have always felt free to critique Graham, even though they were not present at his preaching. Most feel free to critique Warren or Hybels, even though they have never heard him preach in person (or recorded for that matter). So it seems like you are erecting a requirement for critique that has never been accepted among fundamentalists.

The question of a matter is whether or not something is true or right, not whether or not a person was there to hear it. If something is false, or wrong, or true, or right, it is what it is no matter who is there.

Is that argument kind of like; if a tree falls in the forest . . . :)

Tammy, be careful of letting Dave get too close to Bob. I know them both, it could be dangerous!

I know your main point wasn’t the invitation itself, but that reminds me of an invitation I sat through a few years ago. We had a visiting preacher in for a week of meetings, and about halfway through I decided that we didn’t need to hear any more from this guy.

The preaching all week had issues, in my opinion, but on that last (for us) night he simply butchered the Word all through the sermon. I can’t remember the exact topic, but it was horrendous. A couple points were valid, but for the most part it was one of the worst examples of exposition I’ve ever heard. For some points, the only correlation I could make out between his point and the text was that the same word happened to be used in both. And the funny thing was that even for points on which I would’ve agreed with him, he used Scripture that had nothing to do with his point to support them!

Anyway, the invitation … after the sermon, he gave the invitation. Introducing the first verse of the invitation hymn, he called on anyone who wanted to deal with the issues he addressed in the sermon to come forward. I think only one person went. For the second verse, he changed it, calling for anyone who wanted to deal with any issues at all, related to the sermon or not, to come forward. A couple more went.

Evidently this was not enough, because he introduced the third verse something like this (and I’m not kidding; this is an accurate paraphrase): “If any of you have a desire to be a better Christian in any way, shape or form, come forward and let God know you mean it.” Needless to say, many more people went forward. Who doesn’t want to be a better Christian?!

So he got his numbers, but at that point they were completely meaningless. BTW, Bob, I appreciate your blog. You’ve been described as someone who “doesn’t march to the beat of anyone else’s drums,” and that’s a good thing.

Thanks for the warning Chris. It’s funny but as David observed the various personalities these few days, it seemed like the “I am of Apollos, I am of Paul” scenario. Praise God David and I can say that we are of Christ.

As someone who attended, I can say that the invitation was the typical self-imposed legalism that plagued fundamentalism in the past. Dr. Phelps argued in his conclusion that we need to “distribute, distribute, distribute” Then he totally switched gears and said if you haven’t led someone to the Lord you need to get things renewed.

God never called us to lead people to the Lord. He calls us to faithful service (witness) to him. Salvation is God’s business. As he sovereignly works to draw the elect to Him, He is the giver of spiritual life.

God would have deemed Pastor Phelps a faithful servant inspite of the fact that he had only led 1 person to the Lord in the last 2 years. Pastor Phelps has fallen prey to the notion of self-imposed legalism when he says he is guilty of not doing right since he has only led 1 person to the Lord in the last 2 years.

Many people went forward because of the “guilt/pressure” tactics that have plagued us for years.

Bob may have not been there Jeremy but I was and I will echo Bob’s statement when he says, “By his own standards this is a sign of weakness, yet the FBFI wonders why young men want to go somewhere else. Perhaps, ironically, it’s because there is actually gospel power in other places. A gospel power of sorts that precludes the use of emotional tactics to fill the altar call.”

I will say that Dr. Minnick nailed the message of the conference on Wed. night and in essence completely counter-balanced Phelps message of Tuesday night.

Dave -

Please don’t convey your obvious misunderstanding of the biblical meaning of legalism in such an open forum.
I doubt Dr. Phelps has ever tried to earn his way to heaven by his works. I’d be hard pressed to call him a legalist.
You may not appreciate his message, you may not have appreciated his invitation, you may not even appreciate the man himself.
But a legalist?

As to his “manipulative” tactics, I fear that we’ve gone so far in our rejection of the “old-guard fundies” that there is no room any more for “provoking one another to love and good works.” Phelps made the plea that if this was something that people weren’t comfortable doing, they should feel free to not participate.
Following this plea, scores of very discerning men walked the aisle, feeling “provoked” by the concept of sharing the gospel. Not manipulated. To them the weight of their gospel responsibility was very heavy on their hearts, and the opportunity to respond was very real.

Bunch of legalists.

Chad,

The narrow definition of legalism that you define above has been summarily rejected by most thoughtful people including many fundamentalists.

First of all, the word “legalism” does not appear in your Bible; so finding a “biblical meaning” as you suggest would be quite difficult.

Secondly, some efforts to define the word “legalism” as it is bandied about by Christians today has, in fact, been done by thoughtful people. Another friend of mine who is also named Dave let me share his private letter on the subject. There are many ways to define the word ‘legalism’ that does not necessitate an accusation of salvation-by-works.

Thirdly, one way to define that word is “excessive conformism legalism” (Hesselgrave) and “acting nomism” or re-acting nomism” (Longenecker). “Acting nomism/legalism is the act of using God’s law (a good thing) in order to appear righteous before God/man/self. “Re-acting nomism” is the act of using God’s law as a reaction to grace. In a sense, there is a good legalism.

Fourthly, it is you, my friend, not Dave, who is using an open forum to display a misunderstanding of a nuanced subject that most thoughtful people have already grasped.

Fifthly, you do not have to agree with Dave’s assessment of Phelps’ being legalist, but to project on Dave’s use of the word your narrow definition of it is not only wrong, but appears to be belligerently stupid.

Sixthly, Dave did not impugn anyone’s sincerity. In fact, a charitable reading of his critique will show that he actually assumes that Phelps is/has been a faithful servant. The angst Phelps feels is “self-imposed,” as Dave said, if the burden is about doing something that only God can do in the first place: lead a soul to Christ.

Seventhly, your clarification of Phelps’ invitation goes further to show the inappropriateness of it. If, in fact, Phelps “pleaded” (your word) that people should not participate in the standing if they did not feel comfortable, it leads one to wonder why anyone would stand if the only purpose was to show that they had actually led someone to the Lord. As I said, I would not have stood even though I could have (and the only reason I have stated that reality is because I want to preclude my critics who will say I’m criticizing because I’m not a “soul-winner.”) A better invitation might have been, “Stand if you have NOT led anyone to Jesus.”

Finally, God knows that both my friend Dave and I long to be even more passionate about souls than we are and I have not for one mili-second doubted the passion and earnestness of the many people that went forward that night. I have — I must admit — wondered about the honesty and humility of those who would stand — except that I know so many honest people had too little time to think through there actions before they humbly responded to the order of the preacher.

Chad

I don’t believe I have a misunderstanding on legalism. Legalism is imposing any standard on ourselves or others that God never imposes. Whether or not you want to take it to the point of a way that merits salvation is really a matter of interpretation. However, if one believed that he can be saved by keeping a “law” then that is an obvious denial of Eph. 2:8-9. Webster himself defines legalism as: strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code.

I don’t believe I degraded Dr. Phelps in any way. In fact I believe that I complimented him for his labor the last 2 years at MBBC. My argument is that he is imposing a standard on himself and quite frankly others through the invitation that is legalistic by the commonly held view and definition of legalism. God forbid, but had Dr. Phelps died last week, God would have said , “well done good and faithful servant”. However, Dr. Phelps said himself that he is in essence not faithful because he has only lead one person to the Lord in the last 2 years.

As a loving caring brother, I want to say, Dr. Phelps don’t beat yourself up and don’t fall prey to the concept that because someone didn’t get saved you are some sort of unfaithful failure. That is not God’s standard by any means and it is not a biblical approach to ministry success or failure.

Chad, I may be mistaken, but you seem to have issue with those who question anything or anyone in Fundamentalism. You clearly defined legalism as believing in works salvation and then proceeded to call me and others that with the last 3 words of your response to me. I am sorry if you take offense at things people say, but you had better make sure you have your facts straight before you level accusations like you did.

I like cheesecake and Fundamentalists.

It must be nice to feel so free to comment on sermons that you were not present to hear or understand the context in which they are presented. Your liberty must be exhilarating.

It is exhilarating indeed. That liberty, that is.

But your sarcasm was duly noted. And I sympathize. However, as Larry has already pointed out, it seems like you and the FBFI want a new standard, something vastly different than what they have maintained for decades, when it comes to criticisms of their own.

As to whether or not I understood the context or not because I wasn’t there, I don’t think I needed to know much more than what I did. However, I received many emails and talked to a number of pastors who were there that night and they all felt the same way I did. And some of them were FBFI board members.

Bob,

Last night I was able to hear a Chinese pst speak about the doctrinal problems that are rampant in the ch around this country. He was deeply burdened by the fact that people are straying away from the Book. He said, “Now that they have more liberty, they do not want to stand for the truth.” I immediately thought of you. (I had already thought of you because this particularly intense and faithful shepherd always reminds me of you.)

Anyway, thanks for the fact that in the busyness of your liberty, you take the time to still stand for the truth. The current ins and outs of fundamentalism often seem so absurd to me now from this side of the world, but standing for truth just looks a little bit different there.

Karyn

Dave, you said above:

God never called us to lead people to the Lord.

I don’t think you are right on this point, unless you don’t think the Great Commission is an imperative. God called us to make disciples, right? How do we make disciples without leading them to the Lord first?

A lot of people get the Commission wrong when they think it stops with leading folks to the Lord, but it surely must include it, don’t you think?

BTW, were you at BJU in the late 70s, early 80s? Your name seems familiar.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don:

I appreciate your question. However, I disagree with your assumption. Because God has called us to make disciples does not mean he has called us to lead people to the Lord. I cannot lead anyone to the Lord, in the strict sense of the concept. In other words, my point is we witness, that is our job and God is the one who grants salvation. Acts 1:8 clearly shows that my job is to witness. I Corinthians 3:6 clearly teaches that salvation is from God not from us.

So, Don, no I don’t believe we lead people to God in the sense that we grant salvation. It is God who draws and opens the hearts of those He wills. Our job is to faithfully deliver the message and help those who are saved to become more like Christ each day and that is the heart beat of II Timothy 2:2.

I believe the Great Commission with my whole heart and am faithfully striving to fulfill it as best I can within the framework of the sphere of influence that God graciously gives me.

I plant and I water, but God grants salvation. I have no say in the matter. It isn’t my decision whether someone gets saved. It is my responsibility to sow where I can.

The Great Commission is all about salvation and discipleship together. My part in the salvation process is the sowing and it is God’s business about the results.

BTW, no I was not at BJ in the late 70’s and early 80’s. I graduated in 2000.

Thanks again for the question. I hope I have clarified my position.

Dave

(Sidenote - Praying for your family, Dave.)

And may the Lord use us all as His missionaries wherever He plants us. And I am full of expectation. God will cause the Gentiles to glorify Him for His mercies!

Thanks Todd!

Dave,

Just a quick follow-up. You said:

no I don’t believe we lead people to God in the sense that we grant salvation.

Are you suggesting that those who use such the terms “lead people to the Lord” or “soul-winning” etc. mean to say that they personally are the ones granting salvation?

I don’t think you are suggesting that, but rather it is a way to try to maintain a distinction that really isn’t there. Those who use such terms do the same things you would do in witnessing: they preach and teach, counsel, urge, and even try to persuade (a biblical term). Do you do anything differently than that? I doubt it.

With respect to the Lord drawing and opening the heart, yes, the Lord does that. But how? Read Romans 10. He does it by preachers and the hearing of the Word.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don -

I have to be careful here b/c this could get really ugly if I am not careful. As a general rule, no I do not believe that those who use such terms as “lead people to the Lord” or “soul-winning” etc. mean to say that they personally are the ones granting salvation.

I am trying to make the distinction between my job and God’s. I can be involved in the process and you are correct, Romans 10 says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. With that being said, the danger we have is the Arminianistic mindset which the extreme positions would be that somehow I can “persuade someone” or debate the into salvation. You also have the “easy-believism” factor which whether we like to admit it or not is rampant in certain sectors of so called fundamentalism.

You said “they preach and teach, counsel, urge, and even try to persuade (a biblical term). Do you do anything different than that?” No I don’t do anything different. I believe we are to teach, we are to preach and counsel and even urge. I also love the concept of Matthew 5:16. Quite honestly that lacks in a lot of believers lives. The reason we can’t witness to our co-workers and neighbors is because we have a rotten testimony with them. I have worked my fair share of secular jobs and have seen this abundantly.

Don, I am not a huge fan of the word persuade. The one thought that comes to mind is Agrippa saying that Paul almost persuaded him to be a Christian. I am not sure where you stand on this particular term. However, I don’t want anyone to be persuaded into salvation because of me. I want them to be saved because the Holy Spirit opened their eyes to the truth of God’s word. This is the cure to I Corinthians 2:14. I want them to be drawn to God as in John 6:44. It is the Holy Spirit who does the opening and drawing of a man’s soul to the things of God. I may play a small part in that process by being the faithful witness, but that is it.

So, the “persuasion” process or term which people use is not that exciting of a term to me. We have many “false conversions” in Christianity today because they were persuaded to be Christians by another man. Dr. Minnick nailed this in his message Wed. night when he quoted Matthew 7:22. He made the great argument that salvation does not come simply from a verbal acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord, but rather from a belief. This is also the premise behind Macarthur’s book, The Gospel According to Jesus.

So, no, I don’t believe most people believe that they are granting salvation when they say “lead someone to the Lord.” However, we need a clear understanding of how Soteriology works. It is not my “persuasion abilities” that enables salvation. It isn’t about getting someone to a point where we have pinned them down in a theological debate and now they say “fine I will pray this prayer” because I have lost the persuasion debate.

Don, I don’t know you and I am not saying this is your position. However, I do now that this philosophy exists in too many circles. We must be careful how we view the Soteriological system.

Thanks again for the clarifying question. I hope it helps.

Dave

Dave, re ‘persuade’, I was thinking more in terms of 2 Cor 5.11.

As far as my position goes, I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I agree that easy believism is a serious problem.

I think that you minimize the evangelists role when you say “I may play a small part.” If you (or someone) doesn’t preach, how will they believe? God has appointed preaching as the means to draw men. Our role is not insignificant.

Anyway, that is enough for now. We are probably drifting away from Bob’s thread here and I have no desire to get into a protracted debate.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3