The problem with your second point is that we have been doing the very thing you may be suggesting. People confess Jesus (at some level) and are baptized in our churches very quickly. But we never see them again. This is the fruit of a larger problem whose root is buried in the soil of bad doctrine.

What should we do? Jim makes some good suggestions in the article you quoted, though more could be said.

Elliff also said “The dangerous practice of receiving new members immediately after they walk the aisle must finally be abandoned.” Pre-baptism counsel is not evident from the NT. Repent and be baptized. I also think the parable of the sower must be kept in mind. More seed fails than produces lasting fruit.
If discipline, Lord’s Supper, and involvement with the church are means of grace for growth of a believer, wouldn’t it make more sense to bring people into membership upon confession, so that they can be subject to the regular ministry of the church. Delay of acceptance into membership (if membership is that important) seems to be self defeating in promoting maturity.

You said, “If he said church membership and rolls are a human invention that enables us to practice the biblical pattern of church discipline, therefore our rolls should contain only true members; then I would say you’re right.” I have had several conversations with Elliff and know his theology. This is precisely what he would say.

Of course many Reformed churches and preachers were involved in the abolition of slavery. Just off the top of my head how about Samuel Sewall who wrote one of the early tracts against slavery, or John Newton?

I assume the camp-meetings you mention are of the second Great Awakening? Yes reformed pastors were instrumental in both the first GA and the second. One example from the second GA, a contemporary of Finney, would be Asahel Nettleton.

I have read some of those who argue against the traditional view of the GA, and found them lacking. That’s a whole seperate post. But I still have one volume in my library from this view by Frank Lambert. I’ve read it, and have major problems with it.

You keep alluding to Finney, a man whose systematic theology is heretical in my reading (denying substituionary atonement, justification by faith alone, original sin, etc), and I am curious as to him being a point of reference for you.

All of this aside, Elliff’s point is seems to be that we need to do a better job assessing people’s spiritual condition, counting converts, and operating as churches. You seem predisposed to disagree with him. I have no problem disagreeing with good men (Mohler, Elliff, etc.) or agreeing with men I have major problems with (McLaren, Hauerwas, etc.) when warranted. I just think it helps to stay on topic when trying to do so.

I’m more likely to defend someone that Ellif attacks than to agree with him. I think he fails to recognize the distance between this day and the bible days. I don’t really accept the sufficiency of scripture=map of how church is to be governed and run to the letter framework. (maybe I’ll put something about that on my blog)

I wouldn’t call you a dirty Pelagian. You seem pretty clean to me.

His point is the discrepency in numbers reflects a problem (who would disagree with that?). The problem is most likely that our professing converts are not continuing in the church (faith?). I have to agree. Cleaning the rolls wont make us healthy, but it at least can begin to keep us honest. Health will come with good doctrine and practice on both the personal and congregational levels.

Counting numbers isn’t necessarilly bad, but obsession with them is.

What “Arminian” revivals are you referring to? Many of the revivials in the 19th century were carried on via reformed churches/pastors. One of my interests is reading primary source material and first person accounts of these events. I also think the social changes you are referring to are more dramatically seen in the 19th centuries because those revivals often took place in the larger metropolitian areas, versus the colonies during the G.A.

I have never been comfortable when people claim they “won” some number of souls. The term sounds so man-centered.