D.L.Moody

Of course, Moody's theological peculiarities are completly forgiveable because of the numbers of decisions recorded under his ministry. Today, we'll even forgive Spurgeon of being a Calvinist because he had a very large church. Finney - a theological disaster - but man, what an "evangelist"!

Sad thing is, the average baptist today would shout "AMEN!" to what I just posted. They can't see the irony and sarcasm of it.

 

To me, this raises the question of where do we divide.....where do we insist that our teachers and evangelists have pure doctrine, and where do we agree to disagree. If we take the pragmatist viewpoint, we risk inviting heresy and false doctrine, which none of us want. If we insist on a teacher being 100% in line with us, then we will end up dividing over things such as musical instruments, titles of ministers, etc. (which has split churches, by the way). I find it to be very important and interesting to know where to divide. I take Romans 14 as a guide, where we're told to not divide over non-essentials, and 1 Cor. 15 as a guide, where we're told that on essential doctrines, we must agree.

We are commanded to hold fast to essential doctrines. But I think we also must be careful to not be pharisees who strain out gnats and miss the movements of God through uneducated men like D. L. Moody.

 

I share your anxiety over finding that proper line to separate or not to separate. But my critique is not an issue of separation. For example, I would not oppose a Billy Graham Crusade, per se, but I would not support it either. However, I would openly oppose some of his non-gospel teachings, and some of his errors within the gospel itself also.

My concern is that we tend to let the size of a movement determine our opinions of it. "If it's large, it must be of God." Isn't that the rule of the present age (present age as in, let's say, 1850's to today)?

 

Some of the cynicism on this board amazes me at times.

 

Unfortunately, you are correct in that this is the common world view of things. But what we have to be careful of is the knee-jerk reaction to assume "If it's large, it must be fake, because God doesn't like large movements." I think that's as dangerous a philosophy as the other. It's only a very small group of churches that have thousands upon thousands of members. Most Baptist churches in the US are under 400 people.

 

Thanks. While I'm a proponent for Christian education for shepherds, I do not believe it's required. Just because you're uneducated doesn't mean you're dumb, and on the flip side, some of the most idiotic pastors I've served under had their doctorate.

 

You are so very correct. "If it's large, it's not of God" cannot be said of the first Chuch in Acts, the very first "mega Church". Numbers mean zilch. I used J.D.'s quote in Rippon's monthly version of "every month is calvinistic" threads in the theology forum to show that just because there are large numbers of people believing a doctrine, doesn't make it true.

 

Since the average church in America is under 100 and the average SBC church is between 60 and 100 . . . I think it might be safe to say that most Baptist churches are under 100

I pray that all of our churches could multiply this year . . . Lord let us grow from 80 to 280 average attendance this year!

Lord let our average churches become mega churches. Bring to your self one million new believers this next year. And bring a heart of repentance and discipleship to your people.

:godisgood:

 

Wasn't Spurgeon a good friend of Moodies and even allowed him to preach one or three times at his most holy reformed church? Uh...Yes!

Spurgeon called him a man of God and a friend.
Spurgeon did NOT agree with all of Moodys doctrine but believed him sound enough to preach in his church.

 

If I remember correctly, Moody never did preach at Metropolitan Tabernacle.

Spurgeon accepted anyone who believed in Christ as his friend and fellowship, and even to partake of communion in his church.

I will have to find the page in his biography, but it stands out in my mind that Moody was too busy in other places to preach at Spurgeon's Tabernacle.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Let this be recorded,,,,,I stand corrected...I found this in another biography:

Though he didn’t often have what we would call revival meetings, he invited D.L. Moody to preach in his church and Ira Sankey sang at his funeral. Because Spurgeon held to the tenants of Calvinism while being warmly evangelistic it seemed he was often shot at from all sides. Some Calvinists called him an Arminian and many Arminians called him a hyper-Calvinist. These attacks mattered little to Spurgeon.

In my other biography, Moddy had become ill before the preaching dates, and someone else took his place. So much for facts in biographies.........My apologies.

Cheers,

Jim

 

No problem :thumbsup:

 

Posted by Jim

Hi Jim,

Is this biography about Moody himself?

What is the title?

 

Hi Oasis, The quote I gave is in another Spurgeon biography by Fullerton. I don't have the title of the book. I actually got the reference to the quote from another book, Under the Broad Brim by Richard Ellsworth Day. Day also wrote a book about Moody titled Bush Aglow...Judson Press 1934.

Spurgeon was a firm Calvinist (5 pointer) but he fellowshipped with anyone who firmly believed in Christ as their personal Saviour. Something we seem to miss in modernity.

He took his stand when modernism was taking charge in the British Baptist Union and he withdrew from that organization, and later his church was expelled from the Baptist Union. He never stopped having fellowship with the evangelicals, however, just the modernists.


Cheers,

Jim

 

In The Forgotten Spurgeon by Iain Murray it says:"the Arminian view of conversion received a more concrete form in England in the 1870s when it came to logical fruition in Moody's method of giving an 'invitation' at the end of an evangelistic address."
Also: 'Spurgeon denounced the kind of evangelism in which there is 'a wretched lowering of the truth upon many points in order to offer encouragement to men'.
The back cover states the main lines of Spurgeon's spiritual thought in connection with the three great controversies in his ministry:
1. his stand against the diluted Gospel,1850s
2. the Baptismal Regeneration debate of 1864
3. the lacerating Down-Grade controversy 1887-1891 when Spurgeon sought to awaken Christians to the danger of the Church 'being buried beneath the boiling mud-showers of modern heresy'.
Excellent, thought provoking bio, including much info on Moody!

 

Simply put:
Spurgeon didn't have a Calvinist ONLY attitude,
but was a firm Calvinist.

The fact the He and Moody were friends AND allowed him to preach in M.T. did raise some ire from other Calvinists as Moody held to non-calvinistic views.

Moody was a great man of God just as Spurgeon (in regard to how God used them and not education) both committed themselves in almost absolute abandon for their Lord and that is all God wants from any who claim His name.

 

Together Moody and Spurgeon set a fine example for us to live by.:godisgood: