Adrian Rogers 80th Birthday Party

So folks like you have temporarily taken a break by saying that Calvinists worship Calvin. Now you claim we worship Spurgeon. Is your understanding of your fellow believers so darkened?

You prove by your posts that you do very little reading of those you condemn.

 

It isn't that Spurgeon lacked spiritual understanding, it's that I don't agree with his conclusions. I see Calvinism as a blight on Christianity, therefore I don't listen or care for any Calvinistic preacher.

Oh and by the way, you don't know if I am the first person to say this, unless you have listened to everything everyone else has ever said. If you had the ability to do this I think I would be praying to you.

 

It is just laughable that you would say that C.H.S. lacked biblical or spiritual understanding and that Rogers was superior in that regard.

Even though Rogers was an anti-Calvinist I am sure he admired the Prince of preachers and valued him much more highly than you.

That's a real shame. But perhaps you have listen to some along the years who was a Calvinist and you weren't aware of the fact.

You are actually doing yourself a great disservice Robert.

Give a quote by a notable preacher who had negative things to say about Spurgeon and his alleged lack of biblical/spiritual understanding.(That is,aside from some hyper-Calvinists from his own era.)

 

I am not sure what your second paragraph is saying, but I never said I listened to everything every theologian said. What I said is that in theological circles, I have never met someone who thought Spurgeon was not a great theologian.

As for Calvinism, I believe it to be the most God exalting pride crushing doctrine. That is why the majority of CHristianity in history have held to that belief. You ought to spend time reading some of our writers, I spend time reading yours.

 

I find it very interesting that within this thread we have some defending Adrian Rogers as their hero, and then coming against those who were not so keen on his preaching as being jealous, or envious, or what have you. That's a ridiculous conclusion and is rather boorish.

Obviously there are devoted followers of Rogers. This makes them a "man follower" as their (non-cals) same rule applies back to themselves.

Then they have the audacity to accuse others of following Calvin, while excusing themselves? But it's OK to do that and excuse ones self from "following a man" by simply denying they do so. It is quite clear this is exactly what they are doing.

I also find it rather illuminating that if one has read Owen, Spurgeon, Edwards, Pink, Calvin, they are labeled a "man follower." If a person reads Rogers, Charles Stanley, Swindoll, David Jeremiah, Andy Stanley, & c they think they become exempt from being labelled a "man follower" because of the last name(s) of their sugar-stick authors.

I used to like Adrian Rogers when I first got saved. Now? Not so much. I find his preaching overly simplistic and filled (filler really) with quips, rhymes, points, illustrations, humor and anecdotes but lacking in exposition of text and the sound teaching that comes from such study.

Was he captivating to some with all of his fillers? Sure. But some of us have gotten beyond that wanting some real Biblical substance and real exposition. I can't say I get much from him at all, and I still listen to him most every morning but there is much wanting from what he says as far as really preaching from the Bible is concerned.

I know, that doesn't sit too well with some of you who follow him.

BTW, reading Robert Snows disdain for Spurgeon I've come to the correct conclusion that he has never read him, at least very very very little, perhaps a line or two, yet read in full bias against the truths of DoG. Just another non-cal with misinformed no substance disdain for teachings he doesn't know or understand and in a sit down couldn't explain what the teachings are or what they truly teach. He's obviously made a knee-jerk conclusion concerning the teachings thereof.

 

Good thing your opinion don't matter except to you.

A. Rogers was a great preacher. He did as the Lord led him. To say that one preacher leaves another in the dust, when both were doing the Lord's work as He directed them is down right shameful.

Judge in the manner that you want to be judged. Who's and how much dust are you eating?

 

I think comparing the effectiveness of the ministries in the long haul Spurgeon has staying power; I doubt few will remember Rogers in 100 years.

When Spurgeon was alive, he was more popular than even the Prime Minister in London. His funeral was one of the largest England ever saw, 40 years after his death the newspaper was still printing his sermons every week for people to read. Even today, most conservative seminaries require you to read Spurgeon, and interact with his thoughts.

Despite mass media, Rogers' name is quickly vanishing. Most Seminaries do not require reading or listening to Rogers, have people interact with him, nor is he still the driving force despite he was alive just a few years ago. By the time his 100 year anniversary, he will be mentioned in history books, but few will read or listen to him or have much to do with his preaching and teaching. He will still be known to scholars and in the annals of history, but almost no one else will remember him.

Spurgeon, on the other hand, is required reading for scholars, and laymen still regularly pick up his work. You mention Spurgeon, no one doubts who are you talking about. Laymen and Scholars both still read and study Spurgeon.

IN essence, in the scheme of things, Spurgeon will still be known in 100 years and Rogers will be mostly forgotten.

 

His opinion mattered to me. I agree with it, as a matter of fact.

 

Part of the reasoning for your true assesment of his lasting compared to a spurgeon is that Rogers is no theologian whatseover, he was a speaker. Thus his speaking was superficial and truly it did not exposit Scripture in the way that Spurgeon has.

 

It is hilirous to see Calvinist call others "man-followers" considering they can barely get a sentence out without mentioning men like Spurgeon or Calvin. And let's not forget Pink.

Then there is the comment about who will be remembered 100 years from now, as though that proves anything. There is another group who follows Taze Russell and has for over 100 years.

Actually I have read a little from Spurgeon. He seems rather long-winded to me. Then there's the fact that he was grossly overweight and smoked tobacco. Not exactly what I would call a role model.

 

You must mean Charles Taze Russell, correct? I'm certain if he were to speak to you, you'd have much in common doctrinally. I seriously have doubts about your ability to detect error.

You're calling Calvinists heretics. I'm certain, that you being a non-cal will get by with it here.

By the way, you've again brought no substance here, you're merely being contentious. That, and you mention Calvin, Spurgeon and Pink more than a hyper-calvinist. As a matter of fact, you're typically the one to mention them first within a thread.

Your accusation that the reformed brethren can barely get a sentence out without mentioning his name is far-fetched, false prattle. I don't see it happening here, neither do you. As I've stated, you bring him up by name more than any cal does.

 

I was comparing the devotion the JW's have with Russell with the devotion Calvinists have with men like Spurgeon.

I believe you knew this, yet you again attempted to twist what I said into what you preceived (or wanted me to say) to say.

Let me be straight, do you think that the non-Calvinists gets away with more freedom here than the Calvinists do? If so, I believe you are grasping at straws and attempting to poison the well.

 

The issue is not that we like people, but why we like them over someone else. The content of my messages about Spurgeon deal directly with his exposition of Scripture, how he exposited Scripture in a way that is lasting. When comparing to Rogers, I noted that is a major reason I think Rogers is short lived.

Take others we look at, these are people who have had staying power because of the exposition of Scripture. They were not flash in the pan preachers, much like many people in our modern era. Both sides have people they respect, and that is good. We should look at people who have faithfully preached the Word of God. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, do people like Spurgeon because he was a great orator, or because he was a great expositor of Scripture? The same goes with Rogers, do people like him because he was a great orator, or because he was a great expositor of Scripture?

Overall, I do respect people who have great expository skills in helping communicate to the world. To that, I think Spurgeon was one of the best ever. I don't follow him blindly as there are areas I disagree with Spurgeon, but I love reading his exposition of Scripture.

 

To celebrate anything any man has done falls into my idolatry bucket. From my perspective, I bring nothing to the table except a willingness to be used as God sees fit. Any victories or successes that come from that belong to God and God alone.

Mr. Snow I am not envious of AR's ministry... not in the least. Did I like AR's style? Sure, I guess. I don't view fellow people in the ministry that way. There was nothing "good or great" about AR except the Christ that was in him. He isn't any better than any other believer who loves and serves God. The fact that there are some who elevate men like Spurgeon or Rogers to celebrity status or even worse, to "super-Christian" have lost sight of some key principles of God's Word.

I also reject the notion that envy is at the root of criticism. That argument is a non-starter for me. My philosophy of ministry and even some areas of theology are radically different from that of Adrian Rogers and yet I have the deepest respect for him his wife and all they accomplished on this side of eternity. All of that said, as Christ-Followers our attention and focus should be on Christ. When we allow men to capture our hearts... even for only a moment, it means Christ doesn't.

 

I was thinking about this thread earlier today. In fact, I was listening the Avery Rogers on the radio. I asked myself why the controversy? Why not enjoy the strengths of each of these godly men for what they bring to the table?

I will admit I got a bit carried away in an earlier posting. I plan to take some time and read more of some of the things Spurgeon has written. I imagine I will find more I agree with than I disagree with. I apologize for stating things the way I did previously. :love2:

 

That's wisdom kicking in. No one here worships Spurgeon or Calvin, some simply enjoy them.

Nothing wrong with commending others in the ministry. It's Biblical.

 

Rogers will not be forgotten by God and that is who he was seeking to serve. He was not trying to impress the likes of those who follow men and not God.

 

It doesn't sound as if you are even that familiar with Adrian Rogers. Who is Avery?

That's what I like to hear! If you'd do the same with Calvin it would be very reasonable as well.

 

I love Dr. Rogers. I wept the day he died. He was a wonderful preacher. God used him MIGHTILY- both evangelistically and to SAVE the SBC from liberalism.

But to compare him to Spurgeon is just wishful thinking.

 

You know who I was talking about, yet you feel you must point it out.

Does it make you feel better about yourself to act so childish?