# The Life of Leonard Ravenhill



## InSlaveryToChrist

Just ordered mine from:

Leonard Ravenhill Biography | In Light of Eternity

Here is Paul Washer's review and recommendation of the book:

[video=youtube;_QFEte4b5iM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QFEte4b5iM&feature=feedu[/video]


----------



## Notthemama1984

Who was Ravenhill?


----------



## Pilgrim

Chaplainintraining said:


> Who was Ravenhill?



An English born evangelist of the mid-late 20th Century. He rivals A.W. Tozer as many Calvinist's favorite 20th Century Arminian. Both of them were scathing in their denunciation of the low state of professing Christianity in their day, with Ravenhill being perhaps moreso.


----------



## Notthemama1984

If he was an Arminian, then why read his bio?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## JonathanHunt

Chaplainintraining said:


> Who was Ravenhill?



Relatively few seem to have heard of him, from what I can work out. I certainly never had until a couple of american pastors I know recommended a sermon or two of his.

Leonard Ravenhill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems there is good reason to regret his emigration.

---------- Post added at 12:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 AM ----------




Chaplainintraining said:


> If he was an Arminian, then why read his bio?



Are you trying to be clever, edgy, or just annoying? Because we can benefit and learn from the lives of earnest servants of God despite theological differences, that's why!!

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Notthemama1984

JonathanHunt said:


> Are you trying to be clever, edgy, or just annoying? Because we can benefit and learn from the lives of earnest servants of God despite theological differences, that's why!!



I guess just annoying, because it was a legit question.


----------



## Christopher88

I would be very cautious of Ravenhill. 
Armenian lack parts of the gospel which for a non theological Christian who is not reformed, it seriously do damage to their souls to hear of works base theology instead of Grace and Christ theology.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## christianhope

Ravenhill like Tozer, and David Wilkerson were all very refreshing to me, the earnestness with which they sought to arrest the decline of christianity in our day was a blessing from God. Although their theology was off, they kept more of the spirit of christianity then most professing calvinists, their lives reflected their faith, a lesson we can all learn something from.

Leonard Ravenhill may not have been a calvinist, however, he did teach that men must be born again by the Spirit of God supernaturally- implying a soundness within despite some theological confusion without.


----------



## nicnap

Sonny said:


> Armenian




Well, so do Bulgarians, but ...


----------



## Rufus

nicnap said:


> Sonny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armenian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, so do Bulgarians, but ...
Click to expand...

 
What about the Czech?


----------



## Weston Stoler

In the words of Washer "I would take a Leonard Ravenhill any day over 20 dead Calvinists"

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Rufus

Weston Stoler said:


> In the words of Washer "I would take a Leonard Ravenhill any day over 20 dead Calvinists"


 
Depends on the 20 dead Calvinists


----------



## Pilgrim

Rufus said:


> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Washer "I would take a Leonard Ravenhill any day over 20 dead Calvinists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the 20 dead Calvinists
Click to expand...

 
Basically, if you like Washer, you'll like Ravenhill. If you don't like Washer (especially if you think he is too condemnatory, etc.) you probably will not like Ravenhill.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JonathanHunt

I take my Ravenhill and Washer in small doses. Medicinal purposes.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

It is worth considering that Ravenhill was not a Charismatic.


----------



## FenderPriest

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> It is worth considering that Ravenhill was not a Charismatic.


Which seems odd to me, given his popularity among the Pentecostal folks I know.

I liked Ravenhill's _Why Revival Terries_. There were parts of it that were off in my judgment, and parts that seemed strange to me (i.e. How somebody can quote the Puritans, like Baxter, and Charles Finney on the same page is baffling to me), however, his clear-eyed view of the holiness of God and the glory of a Spirit lead church were deeply compelling. There may be problems in his thinking, but we have much to learn from him.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

I think what has made the greatest impact on my life about Ravenhill was his commitment to prayer. He prayed in silence an average of six hours a day. I boldly stand with his belief that "No man is greater than his prayer life."

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Rufus

Pilgrim said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Washer "I would take a Leonard Ravenhill any day over 20 dead Calvinists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the 20 dead Calvinists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically, if you like Washer, you'll like Ravenhill. If you don't like Washer (especially if you think he is too condemnatory, etc.) you probably will not like Ravenhill.
Click to expand...


I like Paul Washer as Jonathan said 


JonathanHunt said:


> I take my Ravenhill and Washer in small doses. Medicinal purposes.



I've listened to both and prefer Washer, and I believe Washer has a sincere heart for missions and a changing of the American church, I like that. I have to say Washer definitely influenced my early Calvinistic life. I got angry over one situation, found out what the prosperity gospel was, angered I looked for rebuttals and found John Piper, than found a picture of John Piper standing next to the guy from I'llbehonest.com, through that I found Washer and was probably introduced to the Puritans and Calvinism along the way.


----------



## J. Dean

JonathanHunt said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he was an Arminian, then why read his bio?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be clever, edgy, or just annoying? Because we can benefit and learn from the lives of earnest servants of God despite theological differences, that's why!!
Click to expand...

Chaplainintraining's question is a significant one. Yes, Ravenhill was a very good evangelist, and his passion for preaching the gospel and condemning lukewarm Christianity, but remember that his Arminian leanings still lean toward a man-centered conversion. While that may sound like a semantic argument, there really is a difference. Johnathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and Asahel Nettleton (who is my avatar pic) were diehard Calvinists who preached with the same sort of evangelical zeal as Ravenhill, yet had a better understanding of biblical conversion and regeneration.

Ravenhill is good, and there's much to glean from him. The same could be said of other Arminians; John Wesley too had some tremendous sermons. But care needs to be taken in the learning of, and study of, Arminians and Arminianism. Being somebody who came out of an Arminian system, I can tell you that there are good Arminian Christians, but they nevertheless hold to a system that comes short on several points, and it's _very_ easy to become man-centered in Arminianism. The shift is subtle and seductive, because it still uses God-centered terminology, but loses God as its center.

Good question, CiT

---------- Post added at 08:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------




Pilgrim said:


> Basically, if you like Washer, you'll like Ravenhill.


If you mean in overall evangelistic and reforming zeal, yes. But Ravenhill was Arminian and man-centered (albeit not nearly as bad as the typical Arminian); Washer is not.


----------



## nwink

Rufus said:


> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Washer "I would take a Leonard Ravenhill any day over 20 dead Calvinists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the 20 dead Calvinists
Click to expand...

 
Calvin, Ussher, Whitaker, Owen, Sibbes, Baxter, Watson, Burroughs, Bunyan, Poole, Henry, Rutherford, Gillespie, Henderson, Witsius, Brakel, Edwards, Hodge, Vos, Dabney? I'll take the 20 dead Calvinists! 

(Just kidding. I know Washer is referring to "dead Calvinists" in the sense of Calvinists who are apathetic and cold-hearted...inconsistent with what they profess to believe.)


----------



## Notthemama1984

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I boldly stand with his belief that "No man is greater than his prayer life."



Then let's throw out our Bibles and just pray.

In fact we should all quit our jobs, stop going to church, stop hearing the Word, stop partaking of the sacraments, and spend every waking minute in silent prayer. If a prayer life is the measure of a man, then more prayer must mean a better man.

Should we also stop evangelizing? That would require us to get out of our prayer closet.

Right?

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## JonathanHunt

This is interesting, and Boliver's point here is valid (reactionary, but valid). This goes with the territory of this kind of preacher. Statements and practices which can be overaweing to Christians of lesser ability, perhaps - or even demeaning. Can a working man spend six hours a day praying, and do a day job, sleep, care for his family, etc? I tend to believe that the personal habits of some 'great' men are better off left personal.

That said, the correlation between prayer and usefulness for the Lord (and yes, even godly character) must be clearly proclaimed, as it is the teaching of the Word of God. So often, though, men like Ravenhill, and Washer, are called to preach a message to spiritually lazy Christians with no life of service for God, just living the 'American dream' and pleasing themselves. David Platt's book 'Radical' deals with this too. In this kind of preaching you can't cry 'WAKE UP' without upsetting people who perhaps are not your intended targets. Upsetting lazy and indolent Christians and unbelievers is just an occupational hazard of true preaching, though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J. Dean

JonathanHunt said:


> This is interesting, and Boliver's point here is valid (reactionary, but valid). This goes with the territory of this kind of preacher. Statements and practices which can be overaweing to Christians of lesser ability, perhaps - or even demeaning. Can a working man spend six hours a day praying, and do a day job, sleep, care for his family, etc? I tend to believe that the personal habits of some 'great' men are better off left personal.
> 
> That said, the correlation between prayer and usefulness for the Lord (and yes, even godly character) must be clearly proclaimed, as it is the teaching of the Word of God. So often, though, men like Ravenhill, and Washer, are called to preach a message to spiritually lazy Christians with no life of service for God, just living the 'American dream' and pleasing themselves. David Platt's book 'Radical' deals with this too. In this kind of preaching you can't cry 'WAKE UP' without upsetting people who perhaps are not your intended targets. Upsetting lazy and indolent Christians and unbelievers is just an occupational hazard of true preaching, though.


You raise a good point about Christians not called to full time ministerial vocations comparing themselves to those who are. We are not all Ravenhills or Washers. Not all are called to the office of pastor or evangelist. Yes, we are to bear witness to the truth and be ready to give an answer; but at the same time we have secular vocations to attend to, and we need to be living out those secular vocations in a manner that glorifies God, and that means conducting aspects of our lives in a manner different than an evangelist or pastor who can afford to use that much time in prayer and Scripture study.

Not to veer off too far, but you mentioned Platt. I was reading through parts of his books the other day, and I wholeheartedly agree with his premise that American Christians are too easily given over to materialism, but I worry that he's overreacting in the opposite direction. It's not a sin to enjoy one's wealth; the book of Ecclesiastes makes this clear. True, Christians should prayerfully consider more ways in which they can support other ministries and further the cause of the gospel through financial means. But if caution is not used, it's not that far a step (particularly with some of the passages I read) into a legalistic, guilty sense of giving. Giving the impression that you're not doing your duty if you don't reduce your lifestyle to that of a monk is bad and unbiblical precident. Making a person feel like they're hoarding from God because they bought some french fries, or purchased a nice car, or saved up some money to take their kid to a football or basketball game is simply judgmental legalism. While I'm sure that this is not Platt's intention, I'm not so sure his book conveys the idea in the right way.

Anyway, back on topic.... it's a bad thing to compare Christians to other Christians in entirely different vocations. Our comparison is to Christ, and we all fall short on that one.


----------



## Rufus

nwink said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Washer "I would take a Leonard Ravenhill any day over 20 dead Calvinists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the 20 dead Calvinists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calvin, Ussher, Whitaker, Owen, Sibbes, Baxter, Watson, Burroughs, Bunyan, Poole, Henry, Rutherford, Gillespie, Henderson, Witsius, Brakel, Edwards, Hodge, Vos, Dabney? I'll take the 20 dead Calvinists!
> 
> (Just kidding. I know Washer is referring to "dead Calvinists" in the sense of Calvinists who are apathetic and cold-hearted...inconsistent with what they profess to believe.)
Click to expand...

 
Ah! I took it a little too literally.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt

While Ravenhill carried many differences theologically with Calvinists, he was a person that never believed that man had any ability to manipulate salvation. Salvation was of the Lord alone.

This is why I can fellowship with him. We disagree greatly, but the core of the Gospel is that only God can reveal and only God can save. He likely held to a believer choosing God, but it is highly unlikely from the way he preached that he believed man can choose God before the revelation of God was opened on them.

I would love to read this biography, however I find the price a bit on the high side for me. I'll let it drop before getting it.


----------



## deleteduser99

No doubt I would caution some guidance when you listen to him because of his views, but I like what Tozer has said on him:



> “Those who know of Leonard Ravenhill recognize in him the religious specialist, the man sent from God to battle the priests of Baal on their own mountain top, to shame the careless priest at the altar, to face the false prophet, and to warn the people who are being led astray by him. Such a man as this is not an easy companion. He insists on being a Christian all the time and everywhere. That marks him out as different. Why do we have men of such fiery swords as Ravenhill? They are sick inside when they see the children of heaven acting like the sons of earth. To such men as these, the church owes a debt too heavy to pay.”



Ravenhill, often as I heard him (not personally), always kept a fire going in me. It's refreshing to see men outspoken against worldliness and carnal living, and I need to hear men like that because without them I'm like a coal out of fire. It's not easy listening, and you don't want a diet of it, but it's beneficial.

I'm going to order the book at some point. I'd like to read that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wannabee

It seems a little disingenuous to criticize a bold preacher of the gospel for being too critical. Ravenhill stirs the blood of Bible believers through his sometimes shocking contrasts between the weak/nominal/false Christian and those who are vibrant. A non(or nominal)-praying vibrant Christian is a contradiction. Strong language stating that no man is greater than his prayer life is spot on. That doesn't imply that men should quit their day jobs, stop reading their Bibles and let the grass grow three feet deep. It does confront the reality that most of us spend too much time sacrificing the magnificent blessings of Christ on the altar of the merely mundane or frivolous.
Like others, I can only take Ravenhill in small doses. But he has been a great preacher of God's word who has been willing to take on the easybelievism that so permeates what passes for Christianity in the modern western culture. The battle still rages. And whether you agree with Ravenhill's technique, statements, etc. or not, as a fellow soldier of Christ you can rejoice in his bold proclamation of Christ. He certainly didn't preach in pretense.


Philippians 1:18
What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

O'GodHowGreatThouArt said:


> While Ravenhill carried many differences theologically with Calvinists, he was a person that never believed that man had any ability to manipulate salvation. Salvation was of the Lord alone.
> 
> This is why I can fellowship with him. We disagree greatly, but the core of the Gospel is that only God can reveal and only God can save. He likely held to a believer choosing God, but it is highly unlikely from the way he preached that he believed man can choose God before the revelation of God was opened on them.
> 
> I would love to read this biography, however I find the price a bit on the high side for me. I'll let it drop before getting it.


 
Actually, if you watched the video on the site, the "story teller" says that Ravenhill held to Total Depravity. Which, of course, should logically lead to embracing the whole TULIP. But obviously Ravenhill contradicted himself in many points.

I'm sorry for this misinformation. The above is not true. I remember someone saying that, but don't remember who it was. Searching...

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 PM ----------

For all of you who might critisize Ravenhill's statement about prayer, namely, "No man is greater than his prayer life," I'd say that's nothing more than Christ saying, "Pray without ceasing." It is an unnecessary conclusion that one should pray in _private_. Prayer is _absolutely necessary_ in every area of our lives!


----------



## py3ak

FenderPriest said:


> (i.e. How somebody can quote the Puritans, like Baxter, and Charles Finney on the same page is baffling to me)



There are many reasons that could lead to this. For one thing, Baxter is not a touchstone of sound doctrine on all points.

When someone doesn't have a view of the whole body of doctrine, it's also easy to pull striking statements, even if they are inconsistent with one another. That is a problem, certainly, because at least preachers really ought to have a grasp on the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures.

Again, people sometimes read for striking statements or forceful remarks, without considering very closely the context or standpoint of the person making the deliverance. Reading that way, you can pull many a quotable statement out of all kinds of people, and some of those statements sound excellent when divorced from their original context (just as many excellent statements can sound horrible taken out of their proper context or divorced from their situation and original standpoint). That can also be a problem.

But eclecticism isn't necessarily bad. There are many good remarks and sharp observations found not only in Christians of various stripes, but even in unbelievers. I have a good quote about eternal life from George Orwell and another from Blaise Pascal: I might quote both of them along with some of our theologians if I had occasion to.


----------



## Pilgrim

Just came across this Ravenhill quote this evening: 



> "There is a cowardly Christianity which...still comforts its fainting heart with the hope that there will be a rapture - perhaps today - to catch us away from coming tribulation" (Sodom Had No Bible, p. 94).



I haven't read _Why Revival Tarries_, but I used to have _Sodom Had No Bible_. My recollection is that the essay with the same name as the title is alone worth the price of the book.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Pilgrim said:


> Just came across this Ravenhill quote this evening:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There is a cowardly Christianity which...still comforts its fainting heart with the hope that there will be a rapture - perhaps today - to catch us away from coming tribulation" (Sodom Had No Bible, p. 94).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read _Why Revival Tarries_, but I used to have _Sodom Had No Bible_. My recollection is that the essay with the same name as the title is alone worth the price of the book.
Click to expand...

 
Ravenhill said very wise things occasionally in his life. I really like the following quotes:

"If weak in prayer, we are weak everywhere."

"Men give advice; God gives guidance."

"Are the things you are living for worth Christ dying for?"

"The Church used to be a lifeboat rescuing the perishing. Now she is a cruise ship recruiting the promising."

"My main ambition in life is to be on the devil's most wanted list."

"If Jesus had preached the same message that ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified."


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I think Paul Washer is also referrring to all the boring and passionless Calvinist preachers out there today. I love Mark Dever, but his sermons are better than Ambien for putting people to sleep. It is ok to be passionate as long as its genuine.


----------



## Pilgrim

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Ravenhill said very wise things occasionally in his life. I really like the following quotes:
> 
> "If weak in prayer, we are weak everywhere."
> 
> "Men give advice; God gives guidance."
> 
> "Are the things you are living for worth Christ dying for?"
> 
> "The Church used to be a lifeboat rescuing the perishing. Now she is a cruise ship recruiting the promising."
> 
> "My main ambition in life is to be on the devil's most wanted list."
> 
> "If Jesus had preached the same message that ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified."



Vance Havner was another 20th Century leader who was known for making pithy statements such as these in his day.


----------



## Notthemama1984

> Actually, if you watched the video on the site, the "story teller" says that Ravenhill held to Total Depravity.



Or at least his version of it.



> "No man is greater than his prayer life," I'd say that's nothing more than Christ saying, "Pray without ceasing." It is an unnecessary conclusion that one should pray in private. Prayer is absolutely necessary in every area of our lives!



Don't know of anyone who has argued that prayer was unnecessary. I am just arguing against the idea that a man's spirituality can be measured by the amount of prayer he performs every day. Most Muslims pray more than Christians, but that does not mean that they are better than the Christians.


----------



## Rufus

Bill The Baptist said:


> I think Paul Washer is also referrring to all the boring and passionless Calvinist preachers out there today. I love Mark Dever, but his sermons are better than Ambien for putting people to sleep. It is ok to be passionate as long as its genuine.



Some people that could get written off as boring and passionless really are passionate there preaching style just doesn't express it, while others can make a big show and really have no care for the lost or the advancing of the Gospel. I've found that some WoF tv preachers are very passionate for ALL of the wrong reasons.


----------



## Reformed Roman

Leonard is only saying that without prayer we are nothing as Christians. Prayer is one of the most overlooked things in the Christian life. We can slam arminians for being man centered but without prayer all we are is man centered. Without prayer we look at ourselves to perform, to live for the LORD when He is the one alone who holds the power. We need to daily rely on Him, and His Holy Spirit to guide our lives. But without communing with God, and asking for these things how will they be so? God uses prayer as a means. Let us not overlook it. Just like many Calvanist teachers have strong points, sometimes Arminians can teach us a lot. That doesn't mean all Calvanists have the same weak points and all Arminians have the same strong points. But Ravenhill is a guy who could teach you more about prayer and what it means to "deny self" and "take up our crosses daily" then most people could. When we look down on Arminians due to our "superior theology" we forget about the fact that many of them are strong in their faith and can teach us many things. Pride kills, and of course, that's another reason to pray.

Please, nobody take this post and take it out of context. No, we shouldn't be buddhists. Yes, we need to live the Word. And yes, we have to work. And get in our Word too. Which is also of course extremely vital for Christian living. Don't use those other things and their importance to take you away from the importance of prayer.

This biography would be a great buy. And perhaps when I'm finished with the set of books I'm reading, I'll pick it up.


----------



## elnwood

I'm new to this discussion, but having perused it, I'm really surprised at the amount of criticism this book has gotten.

One of the reasons why I am surprised is that the book cited is a biography of the Ravenhill, not a book written by Ravenhill himself. We read historical biographies of people who aren't Christians all the time. I don't think we need to be told that it is not profitable to do so, or be warned about the man-centeredness of it, even though a non-Christian is surely more man-centered than an Arminian evangelist.

The other reason I'm surprised by the criticism is that the only person in this discussion who has read the book is Paul Washer, and he gives it a ringing endorsement. Now, there very well may be parts of the biography that are unprofitable because of Ravenhill's Arminianism, but none of us can really say. At this point I'm more inclined to go with Washer's recommendation over the criticism, not merely because he is a great Calvinist evangelist, but because he has actually read the book and can speak for it.

However, I do think there is an important place for constructive criticism, and I do not want to limit critical discussion. What I suggest for those who want to be constructive and edifying with their criticism is to read the book, and blog post a review on the Puritan Board discussing what parts were helpful and what parts we ought to be warned about.

I look forward to such a review! I think that would greatly enhance our discussion.


----------



## Notthemama1984

> We read historical biographies of people who aren't Christians all the time.



I read baseball biographies to learn about baseball. I read military biographies to learn about military tactics. If I were to read a biography of an Arminian evangelists, it would be to learn how Arminian evangelists conduct ministry. 

The first two examples could be profitable, but I can't see how the latter would be.


----------



## py3ak

Chaplainintraining said:


> I read baseball biographies to learn about baseball. I read military biographies to learn about military tactics. If I were to read a biography of an Arminian evangelists, it would be to learn how Arminian evangelists conduct ministry.
> 
> The first two examples could be profitable, but I can't see how the latter would be.



That seems like an amazingly truncated view of a biography: you read through the whole life of a person to learn about what they did at work? I don't know that I've ever read a biography that would be reasonably approached that way.


----------



## moral necessity

Leonard Ravenhill grew out of the British Holiness Movement, which was an offshoot of both the Wesleyan Revivalist Movement, as well as the American Holiness Movement, whose leaders were Charles Finney and Pearsall/Hannah Smith. The emphasis of these influences centered around entire sanctification available by faith. I hope the biography brings all of this out.

http://www.regal-network.com/chm/files/pdf/british_holiness_movement.pdf

Blessings!


----------



## Notthemama1984

> That seems like an amazingly truncated view of a biography: you read through the whole life of a person to learn about what they did at work? I don't know that I've ever read a biography that would be reasonably approached that way.



Well I am not going to read a biography of Patton to see what his favorite cigar was. The biography might mention his favorite cigar, but the focus of the bio is on his military actions. 

I am not going to read a biography of Mickey Mantle to learn what he read in his spare time. I am reading to see what his approach to baseball was. 

I am sorry if this seems truncated, but I really do not see a different reason to read biographies.

Also it is not that I am reading a biography to learn what they did at work, but am reading a biography to learn more about what they were known for.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have read a few great biographies about semi-pelagians. I really appreciated their reliance upon the Lord. Arnold Dallimore did a lot of work on the Great Awakening and even did a good bio on Charles Wesley. The Whitefield bio was a compilation of all the movements and people around Whitefield. The Navigator ministry was started by a semi-pelagian as were most of the para-church organizations many of us have benefited from. God used some of these good men. It is great to see the works of God in their lives. Their theologies might have had wholes in them but ours do also probably. I have greatly benefited from many semi-pelagians.

BTW, some of you guys scare me. You might crucify me for finding benefit from semi-pelagians.  At least I grew getting to know some things about others that I disagreed with. 

BTW, I am sure Leonard Ravenhill prayed before an open Bible. I am most willing to bet a lot of his moaning and rejoicing from God were the out flow of the book in front of him.


----------



## py3ak

Chaplainintraining said:


> Well I am not going to read a biography of Patton to see what his favorite cigar was. The biography might mention his favorite cigar, but the focus of the bio is on his military actions.
> 
> I am not going to read a biography of Mickey Mantle to learn what he read in his spare time. I am reading to see what his approach to baseball was.
> 
> I am sorry if this seems truncated, but I really do not see a different reason to read biographies.
> 
> Also it is not that I am reading a biography to learn what they did at work, but am reading a biography to learn more about what they were known for.



Curiosity about the _person_ doesn't enter into it? I suppose if sports and military biographies are most of the biographical writings you read it might be understandable, but people like Lady Mary Wortley Montagu or Samuel Johnson are interesting for their characters and experiences, as well as for providing something of a window into their own time.


----------



## Notthemama1984

> Curiosity about the person doesn't enter into it?



Sure it does, but every bio I have read shows how life experiences or other things shaped a person into the person he is known for.

If I am in the minority, that is fine. Nothing to cry over.


----------



## py3ak

Sure, that's part of it; but the details are also a vital part of it. If they weren't, people wouldn't read biographies - they'd just read encyclopedia articles. I learned a good deal about opera, about the _Risorgimento_, and about Cavour and Garibaldi reading George Martin's _Verdi_; but the motivation behind desiring to read it was not to learn about those things, but a desire to be better acquainted with Verdi himself. Perhaps the single most memorable thing from the book was the image of Verdi playing _Va pensiero_ on the piano for his father-in-law while the latter gentleman lay dying.


----------



## Pilgrim

I haven't read the book, although I look forward to it, d.v. 

I don't think it's been brought out here, but I'll note that the author, Mack Tomlinson, is a Calvinist. He's probably not a strict 1689er across the board, but he's a 5 pointer and non-dispensational. That's one reason that Washer is endorsing the book--both of them are, broadly speaking, part of what you could call the independent sovereign grace Baptist movement. That's the same circles that Pergamum comes from. Some of the men in those circles are NCT, some are more covenantal. I've had some association with them in the past as well, but it's been a few years. Although the differences in theology are obvious and were not lost on them, many of the men in that movement regarded Ravenhill very highly and saw him as an ally against the superficiality in evangelical churches in the late 20th Century. 

The publisher is Free Grace Press which last year published Jeffrey Johnson's "Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism." 

Let's not be so hard on Boliver.  He probably figures he has to read enough non-Reformed books or books about non-Reformed people at DTS as it is and may be overreacting!


----------



## J. Dean

Remember: even Charles Spurgeon had Arminian allies during the Down-Grade Controversy!

Where Ravenhill was biblical in his preaching and teaching, we should give concession to that. That doesn't mean we agree with every single point, but at the same time when Ravenhill or any other Arminian states something that is in line with the Word of God, we need to say "Amen." In Ravenhill's case, so long as he was putting forth holiness as an _evidence_ of salvation and not the cause of it, I have no problem with it. Now, when he starts saying, like Finney, that holiness saves us (and I don't know whether or not he ever did), or when he starts pushing altar calls, then we have serious problems.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thought this was a good quote by J. Gresham Machen in Christianity and Liberalism. p.35, 36



> Another difference of opinion is that between the Calvinistic or Reformed theology and the Arminianism which appears in the Methodist Church. It is difficult to see how any one who has really studied the question can regard that difference as an unimportant matter. On the contrary it touches very closely some of the profoundest things of the Christian faith. A Calvinist is constrained to regard the Arminian theology as a serious impoverishment of the Scripture doctrine of divine grace, and equally serious is the view which the Arminian must hold as to the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. Yet here again, true evangelical fellowship is possible between those who hold, with regard to some exceedingly important matters, sharply opposing views.


----------



## Notthemama1984

> Let's not be so hard on Boliver. He probably figures he has to read enough non-Reformed books or books about non-Reformed people at DTS as it is and may be overreacting!



This actually made me giggle.


----------



## LeeD

Pilgrim said:


> I don't think it's been brought out here, but I'll note that the author, Mack Tomlinson, is a Calvinist. He's probably not a strict 1689er across the board, but he's a 5 pointer and non-dispensational. That's one reason that Washer is endorsing the book--both of them are, broadly speaking, part of what you could call the independent sovereign grace Baptist movement. That's the same circles that Pergamum comes from. Some of the men in those circles are NCT, some are more covenantal. I've had some association with them in the past as well, but it's been a few years. Although the differences in theology are obvious and were not lost on them, many of the men in that movement regarded Ravenhill very highly and saw him as an ally against the superficiality in evangelical churches in the late 20th Century.


I am not sure how I missed this thread, must have been due to recent traveling. I am a member of Providence Chapel where Mack Tomlinson is an elder. I was also privileged to travel with him to England and Wales in 2010 as he researched the early life of Leonard Ravenhill. I admire Ravenhill due to his passion, prayer life, and the anointed preaching ministry that God gave him. Ravenhill desired to see God glorified, His church energized and edified, and Christians walking in obedience. God gave Him a unique platform that benefited many.

Mack Tomlinson is as Pilgrim described a reformed baptist elder, a Calvinist, and a dear brother. The book which he had labored over for years is edifying, stirring, and a profitable read.


----------



## BJClark

> Then let's throw out our Bibles and just pray.
> 
> In fact we should all quit our jobs, stop going to church, stop hearing the Word, stop partaking of the sacraments, and spend every waking minute in silent prayer. If a prayer life is the measure of a man, then more prayer must mean a better man.
> 
> Should we also stop evangelizing? That would require us to get out of our prayer closet.



[rant on]
I've heard this argument from a few different people, and have noticed they tend to use it more as an excuse not to pray at all or to spend very little time in prayer.

What does Scripture mean to 'pray without ceasing'?

Could a man listen to radio sermons as opposed to say "rock and roll" or "country' music? thus being fed the word of God 

I've also heard folks say.."well, I'm not getting PAID to study God's word or pray like the pastor does"

Personally, I want to scream when I hear those things...Your not being paid?? are you being paid to listen to rock and roll? are you being paid to listen to country music? are you being paid to sit on your butt in the evenings and watch TV?? are you being paid to spend time w/ your wife and kids?

Isn't a man caring for his family when he spends time praying and in God's word? Isn't he in essence caring for them by tending to his own spiritual health? and thus theirs as well?

If a man can find the time to listen to secular music during his day then he certainly could replace that time w/ listening to the preaching of Gods word or in prayer..could he not??

I am just sick of hearing that excuse...granted a man may not be able to spend six or eight hours on his knees in prayer (as some pastors years ago) nor would I expect them too (nor do I think most people would) however, they could spend an hour or even half an hour out of their day doing so..that would certainly be better than nothing at all..

And thinking in terms of the Pay, haven't we been paid? Didn't Christ make the payment on the cross?? Isn't the payment of prayer and spending time in God's word getting to know more about God? and having a deeper relationship with Him?? Why must it be about money and financial gain??

Isn't the payment of spending time w/ one's wife and kids a better, deeper and fulfilling relationship??

[/rant off]


----------



## FenderPriest

py3ak said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> 
> (i.e. How somebody can quote the Puritans, like Baxter, and Charles Finney on the same page is baffling to me)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many reasons that could lead to this. For one thing, Baxter is not a touchstone of sound doctrine on all points.
> 
> When someone doesn't have a view of the whole body of doctrine, it's also easy to pull striking statements, even if they are inconsistent with one another. That is a problem, certainly, because at least preachers really ought to have a grasp on the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures.
> 
> Again, people sometimes read for striking statements or forceful remarks, without considering very closely the context or standpoint of the person making the deliverance. Reading that way, you can pull many a quotable statement out of all kinds of people, and some of those statements sound excellent when divorced from their original context (just as many excellent statements can sound horrible taken out of their proper context or divorced from their situation and original standpoint). That can also be a problem.
> 
> But eclecticism isn't necessarily bad. There are many good remarks and sharp observations found not only in Christians of various stripes, but even in unbelievers. I have a good quote about eternal life from George Orwell and another from Blaise Pascal: I might quote both of them along with some of our theologians if I had occasion to.
Click to expand...

Yes, very true. (Sorry for a belated reply.) It's helpful to keep that way of quoting in mind since it's not how I do things, but I can understand how others would (justified or not). And just to clarify, Baxter certainly isn't the best on some points, but he's just the name that came to mind in terms of puritans quoted by Ravenhill.


----------

