The manipulation can be intense and music adds to that.

on the contrary, i heard an australian evangelist once tell people to go home and think about their decision for Christ and then decide. nicely done! it avoids the manipulation of the moment.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. As I stated earlier, I think there is more misunderstanding than there is disagreement in this discussion. As you have rightly stated, there are some hills that are not worth fighting while there others where we must take our stand. As far as I am concerned, the gospel of Jesus Christ with which we have been entrusted is a hill I am willing to fight for.

You may be saying, “But such methods are being employed men who believe the same thing we do about the gospel.” Perhaps so, but they are denying it with their methods. The gospel Finney preached was explicitly Pelagian, and yet the methods that were developed to be consistently and logically compatible with such beliefs have had a lasting legacy among conservatives who believe the Bible. If we reject Finney’s theology, then the methodology which flows from that stream of thought too must be rejected (at least under serious scrutiny). My hunch is that most folks today practicing such methods and measures do not know where they came from and how they became so popular. At least I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

As far as leaders in the SBC, I have not “attacked” any of the “great preachers of our faith.” If I have, please point that out to me. Now, what I have done is discussed issues and beliefs of individuals of whom I may have disagreement, but this is far from being an attack. In fact, meaningful discussion over issues is impossible unless you come down somewhere with a position, conviction, or stance. If I am found to be on the other side of certain men of the past does not constitute an attack. I think there is a breakdown in our ability to have substantive conversation without jumping to conclusions prematurely.

Regarding the men of the past, particularly in the SBC, I do find it troubling that my generation of SBCers are disconnected from our elder generation and are looking to leaders, pastors, church planters, theologians, etc. outside the SBC for examples to follow. I wish this were not the case, but that is the predicament we find ourselves.

So going back to the principle issue on this post, the reason why I hold my convictions the way I do is because it is not over a nonessential or peripheral matter, but precisely on the heart of the Christian faith – the gospel of Jesus Christ. This gospel is my driving passion which I earnestly long to share with others and want to live out in my life. And yes, it is something I want to contend for when it is lost, changed, watered down, added to, suppressed, or ignored.

I do believe that salvation has come from God alone. I am saved by grace. It is the gift of God and not a result of works. I believe justification, sanctification, and glorification is all God’s doing and not mine. I believe as Christians we are to live holy, righteousness lives. I also believe in once saved always saved, I don’t one can lose their salvation.

I further believe that there are many on our church roles who are not saved. I believe it is because we have preached a gospel of ease for so many years now. So, we do hold to many of the same doctrines.

My problem is that we seem to be making a mountain out of a mole hill. Our Convention, assuming you guys Southern Baptist, seems to be preparing to fight once again. There are hills worth dying on and I will die on these theological hills if need be. But this one is not one of those hills.

It is my experience that the methods used are not the problem. The problem is often the church who does not reach out to new believers in an honest attempt to disciple them and grow them up in their most holy fatih.

The men that we take issue with over their methods are men who believe much the same as we do. Many of those same men are men who have taken a stand in the past and brought the SBC back to a solid conservative stand. I have no doubt that there are some who are exactly as you say they are. But, that is not the whole.

I’ve used multiple methods in the invitation and in revivals. The method doesn’t concern me but the message is preached is infinitely important. We had a Calvinist as few years ago hold revival services for us. He preached a powerful message on salvation and there was no doubt that many were under conviction. When he issued the invitation it was though he was trying to talk most of them out a decision for Christ.

That’s the other extreme. My point is there are extremist on either side of the issue but that doesn’t make everyone on a paticular side and extremist.

Again I apologize for offending. I understand your blog is for honest discussion on the issues of our faith and methodology is one of those discussions worth having. I don’t offend to offend, but on these issues some of the great preachers of our faith are being attacked, or so it seems. Some of them I know personally and I watch their lives, I see their tears as we gather in our prayer closets and cry out to God. They have geniune concern for the church and for seeing the lost come to Christ. They are sincere in their pleading and their pressing for souls.

Let me end with a quote from one of these guys. “I will die for convictions, but I can pass on my opinions.” We have a tendency, I think, to make our opinions our doctrine at times. We must be careful that it is always “Thus saith the Lord”.

Anyway, thanks for allowing me to comment on the issues.

I am out of town, so I cannot reply to the degree I would like. Assuming that this is the first time you have commented on my blog, let me first say welcome. I understand that there are things I write and discuss where you disagree with me, and I welcome that. I do hope, however, we can refrain from unnecessary rhetoric and accusations about people of whom we know absolutely nothing save the comments made on the internet. Granted, I have outed myself to a degree publicly through a blog, but should you scroll down just a page or two, you will find much that is said in the nature of evangelism, soul-winning, and the gospel.

I spent a few moments to peruse your church’s website, your vision statement, church covenant, and confession (BF&M2000). Part of your church’s covenant states that a member should “avoid all tattling, backbiting, and excessive anger.” Having been around on the blogosphere for some time, I recognize that is really easy to find blogs and comments section a tempting place to vent and express anger. As a brother in Christ, I would ask that such intemperance be refrained in the future, and, should I be found in such a state, that would lovingly hold me accountable to that.

Furthermore, your vision speaks of praying for revival. The issue brought up in these examples are about those who have developed measures which have a theological tradition that takes the necessity of praying for revival away. For, if revival is something that we can (and must) do, then revival is not the divine work of God’s Spirit being poured out on His people. Finney and those who adopted such measures did not believe that revival was an extraordinary work of God’s providence, but the successful implementation of appropriate means to accomplish their ends. Salvation, and therefore revival, is not the work of God but the engineering of man. Therefore, what we need to be doing is not praying for God to work, but attempting to convince people who are sovereign in their own salvation to choose Christ of their own free will.

And at this point, I would argue that those who employ such methods and meaures are doing something in practice contrary to what we confessionally believe in the Baptist Faith and Message which says,

“Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.”

and

“Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.”

In any case, the issue is not whether we believe in winning people to Christ, praying for revival, etc. The issue is whether our methods are consistent with what the Bible says about conversion and salvation.

Thanks for commenting, and again, I hope you find it less incumbent upon you to show contempt and satirize a matter that, for many of us, is not a theological debate but a matter of life and death.