Calling out White, Sproul, Morgan, and "The Founders"
To The Calvinist Flyswatter readers:In his comment below, Bob Ross calls out James White, R. C. Sproul, Scott Morgan, and any "Founders" brethren holding to the "regeneration before belief" view. Will they debate this issue? My prediction: Not a chance!
To Bob Ross:
Bob, I don't believe you'll hear as much as a squeak from any of them, especially "The Founders." They don't want their extreme Calvinism to be exposed to the rest of the Southern Baptist Convention, a Calvinism which is unlike that of Charles H. Spurgeon and the real founders of the SBC. A while back I posted comments on The Founders blog stating how "Dr." James White kept ignoring this issue only to have my comments deleted. The Founders will just keep floundering away trying to keep as many people in the dark as possible as to how they differ from confessional Calvinism.
The Founders claim to want to go back to the founders but as you have demonstrated, their "regeneration before belief" view is neither biblical nor Baptist.
Charles
-------------------
WHAT ABOUT CARROLL'S IMPECCABLE SYLLOGISM?
Charles, I quoted the late Dr. B. H. CARROLL'S "syllogism," and I noticed that no one has ventured to dispute it.
Do you suppose it would furnish a good Proposition for a Debate with the HYBRID CALVINISTS who hold to the "pre-faith new birth"?
Wonder if James White, R. C. Sproul, Scott Morgan, and some of the Founders could perhaps pool their exegetical and theological brain-power to negate Dr. Carroll's syllogism in a Public Debate?
Dr. Carroll's view is summed up in the following syllogism, on page 287 of Volume 10, Part I on The Gospels, An Interpreation of the English Bible:
>>
(1) Every one born of God has the right be called a child of God.
(2) But no one has the right until he believes in Jesus.
(3) Therefore the new birth is not completed without faith."
>>
Perhaps you could start a new thread on this so as to give it very definite significance. -- Bob L. Ross
posted by Charles @ 4:04 PM
18 Comments:
SIMPLE FAITH
Charles, although I am a Calvinist, I have no appreciation for the extreme "preparationalism" that is sometimes associated with Calvinists, such as I wrote about in the post about "Alleine's Alarm" -- or as it's called today by the publisher, "Sure Guide to Heaven." (They would have done better on that if they had also changed the contents, not merely the title).
I'm a lover of the "simple gospel" -- like all those verses on faith in John, a book written to lead men to believe in Christ (John 20:31).
Spurgeon pointed out the paradox, however, saying that believing "is the simplest matter in all the world, yet, by reason of its simplicity, it is the hardest possible act for human nature to perform" (Vol. 12, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, page 18).
Human nature makes it hard. Human nature wants to "do" something moe than simply believe.
It is hard enough to convince a person of the simplicity of salvation by believing without adding all the extra baggage such as expounded by the "Sure Guide" book.
And this is a situation in a lot of Calvinist pulpits and churches, for they themselves do not give the impression that they are convinced of the simplicity of faith in Christ for salvation. That is why a lot of them, I think, oppose public invitations -- they just don't have a lot of confidence in simple faith in the simple gospel.
People often ask me, here in my store, for books and literature on "how to deal with" or "answer" this, that, and the other type of cultic people. I always take a Bible and turn it to John 3, and I tell them to "hold their noses to John 3:18, and don't let them budge off of it to some other rabbit trail. If they won't accept John 3:16-1818, it won't do them a bit of good if you persuaded them about the error of some of their other unscriptural ideas."
What good does it do a person to argue them away from some cult doctrine, if they won't believe on the Son for salvation? If they will believe on Christ for salvation, that will expel a multitude of errors.
Spurgeon has a story about a simple fellow named "Jack." He was saved by simply believing, and would go around telling people he was saved, but many had doubts about Jack's being truly saved -- he was such a simpleton. Jack would simply reply to their questions --
"I'm a poor sinner,
and nothing at all,
but Jesus Christ
is my all and all."
His critics and the doubters just could not shake Jack off of his simple faith. Spurgeon took about two pages, telling about "poor Jack" and his testimony (Vol. 1, New Park Street Pulpit, pages 361-362).
Today, some of the "ultrafine doctrinal brethren" (as Spurgeon called them), put down simple faith as "easy believism," and they hold up an experiental standard so high that it amounts to another form of salvation by works. But by God's grace, salvation is "easy," and salvation is "simple" -- despite what the brethren say and think.
Spurgeon said, "O simple faith, thou hast the key to the kingdom! Come, and welcome into my heart" (Vol. 38, MTP, page 201).
Spurgeon preached a sermon on John 1:12, 13, and he opened it by saying, "Everything here is simple; everything is sublime. Here is that simple gospel by which the most ignorant may be saved" (Vol. 38, MTP, page 265).
He said it was so simple that "children of three and four years of age have doubtless been capable of it; and there have been many persons, but very little removed from absolute idiocy, who have been able to believe; a doctrine which needs to be reasoned out may require a high degree of mental development, but the simple act of trusting requires nothing of the kind" (Vol. 12, MTP, page 19).
Now, the reason Spurgeon believed it was so simple is because he believed that the Word of God is powerful, and the Holy Spirit accompanies the Word, and that is what overcomes the resistance of human nature, and makes it easy to believe.
"This is a very simple matter," he said, "One grain of faith is worth more than than a diamond the size of the world . . . Salvation is a very simple business. God help us to look at it simply, and practically, and to receive Christ, and believe on his name! . . . I go over and over and over with this, and never get one jot further, because I find that this medicine cures all soul sicknesses, while human quackery cures none. Christ alone is the one remedy for sin-sick souls. I can sympathize with Luther when he said, 'I have preached justification by faith so often, and I feel sometimes that you are so slow to receive it, that I could almost take the Bible, and bang it about your heads!" (Vol. 38, MTP, page 268, 269, 272).
Spurgeon told of a woman who heard him preach but would not believe. She wanted him to pray for her to be saved. Spurgeon said, "No, I will not pray for you . . . I set before you Christ crucified, and I beg you to believe in him. If you will not believe in him, you will be lost; and I shall not pray God to make any different way of salvation for you. You deserve to be lost if you will not believe in Chirst."
The immediate result was that the woman exclaimed, "Oh, I see now! I do look to Christ, and trust him"(Vol. 38, MTP, page 388).
It's all so simple, isn't it?
Dear Charles and Brother Bob,
Keep up the great work. I just left James White's site and guess what -- he's made his position on regeneration the main post of the day (3/18). I noticed James quotes points 1 and 2 of chapter 10 (Effectual Calling) of the 1689 London Baptist Confesional, but he omits points 3 and 4. He also includes part of a Spurgeon sermon and sums it up to all who read that these are the things he believes.
However, from James White's site -- Statement of Faith...
"We believe that God, in His sovereign grace and mercy, regenerates sinful men by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by any action of their own, bringing them to new life. God grants to them the gifts of faith and repentance, which they then exercise by believing in Christ and turning from their sins in love for God. As a result of this faith, based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, God justifies or makes righteous the one who believes. God's gift of faith, and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the elect, results in good works. These good works flow from true, saving faith; they are a necessary result of faith, but are not to be considered necessary to the gaining of justification, which is by God's grace through faith alone, so that no man can boast."
Perhaps I misunderstand James' position under his statement of faith, fifth paragraph, and it affirms his post of 3/18. However, it appears to me in the statement of faith that James says 1) the Holy Spirit regenerates sinful man bringing them to new life 2) then God grants them the gifts of faith and repentance 3) which they then exercise by believing in Jesus.
Perhaps that's what points 1 and 2 of the confessional say and Spurgeon says, but I didn't see the part about regeneration preceeding faith in them.
In Him,
Eye
Bob quoted Spurgeon as saying, "children of three and four years of age have doubtless been capable of it"
Amen! Bob, what did Spurgeon believe as to the baptism of children? Did he require a certain age?
There is a trend in some "Founders"-like churches to not baptize children. I believe Mark Dever's church is one.
Charles
Dear Brother Bob and Charles,
You are most persuasive in printing BH Carroll's position. For ease of review I include here:
Dr. Carroll's view is summed up in the following syllogism, on page 287 of Volume 10, Part I on The Gospels, An Interpreation of the English Bible:
>>
(1) Every one born of God has the right to be called a child of God.
(2) But no one has the right until he believes in Jesus.
(3) Therefore the new birth is not completed without faith."
>>
Perhaps you could start a new thread on this so as to give it very definite significance. -- Bob L. Ross
****************************
I wholeheartedly agree with this quote which on the surface disagrees with the 'regeneration preceeding faith' view.
Keep up the great work!
In Him,
Eye
SPURGEON AND BAPTISM
Charles asked,
"Amen! Bob, what did Spurgeon believe as to the baptism of children? Did he require a certain age?
Charles
>>
BOB'S ANSWER:
Spurgeon had an Orphanage, Charles, and he, his Sunday School teachers, other workers, his sponsored Evangelists of his Tabernacle Evangelistic Assocation,won hundreds of youngsters to the Lord.
The children gave public professions before the church, and they were baptized. Spurgeon required only only one thing -- they believed in Christ as their Saviour.
Spurgeon often said he could have been converted earlier, had it not been for hindrances from some of the more "doctrinally" inclined adults. He specifically cited "Alleine's Alarm" (book) as one of those hindrances.
I have an article on file about his views on child conversion. Would you like to have it? If so, I will email it to you.
-- Bob L. Ross
ABOUT JAMES WHITE'S STATEMENT OF FAITH,
EYE said,
"However, from James White's site -- Statement of Faith...
"We believe that God, in His sovereign grace and mercy, regenerates sinful men by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by any action of their own, bringing them to new life. . . "
Notice anything MISSING? James does not specify the MEANS used by the Spirit -- the WORD OF GOD -- in giving "new life." Compare that to Ezekiel 37, the dry bones. The WORD was preached FIRST, then life came afterwards.
This is the MAIN POINT - the point which is denied by Hybrid Calvinism. They teach a "direct operation" apart from the use of the Word of God as the means.
This idea of "life" is not the LIFE produced by the Word AND the Spirit. John 6:45; 6:63; First Thessalonians 1:5; Romans 1:16; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14; John 3:14, 15; etc.
On John 3:14, 15, were the serpent-bitten Israelites healed BEFORE they looked, or WHEN they looked?
It takes BOTH the WORD and the SPIRIT to create faith, thereby bringing to pass the NEW BIRTH. 1 John 5:4, 5. Those verses teach that FAITH "overcomes" the world, and faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17; John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 4:15.
Pedobaptist Hybrid Calvinism, as taught by Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, etc. denies that the WORD is instrumental in producing life, or the New Birth. They teach regeneration by a "DIRECT OPERATION" of the Spirit APART FROM MEANS.
That is the HARDSHELL doctrine that the Primitive Baptists adopted shortly after they split from the "Means" or Missionary Baptists in the 1830s. -- Bob L. Ross
Seems your numbers are so few that according to the SBC view that numbers prove truth of progress that you prove failure to gain and audience which is a sign to me that Truth can't be tainted by such lies.
DR. CARROLL'S SYLLOGISM
Dear Charles,
May I suggest that you carry Dr. B. H. Carroll's Syllogism on the opening page each day -- for awhile at least? This might give new readers an immediate insight into what the Flyswatter is about.
Dr. B. H. Carroll's view is summed up in the following syllogism, on page 287 of Volume 10, Part I on The Gospels, An Interpretation of the English Bible:
>>
(1) Every one born of God has the right be called a child of God.
(2) But no one has the right until he believes in Jesus.
(3) Therefore the new birth is not completed without faith."
>>
Dr. Carroll was the Founder of the Southwestern Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, and a greatly respected Baptist leader, educator, and Bible expositor among Southern Baptists. His Seminary became the largest Baptist seminary in the world.
I am willing to defend Dr. Carroll's syllogism in Public Debate with James White, R. C. Sproul, Pastor Scott Morgan, or any representative of the Founders Ministries. -- Bob L. Ross
FLYSWATTER AUDIENCE
"Anonymous said...
Seems your numbers are so few that according to the SBC view that numbers prove truth of progress that you prove failure to gain and audience which is a sign to me that Truth can't be tainted by such lies."
Your concern about the Flyswatter's audience is rather superfluous and unncessary.
I am under Contract to Charles to make this website the bane of Hybrid Calvinist doctrine, and Charles is under Contract to me to facilitate the effort.
Neither of our Contracts specify any particular "number" in the audience. I simply have to do the best I can to refute Hyrid Calvinism, and Charles is to do the best job he can do in handling my postings on the Flyswatter.
Thus far, I am well pleased. I hope my efforts have been satisfactory to Charles.
Thanks, Anon, for your concern, but you really don't have to worry about it. -- Bob L. Ross
SCOTT said,
>>
Bob would be taken more serious and probably " Gain an ear" if he would distance himself from the guys like Charles unless he is trying to share Scripture with them to help correct them.
>>
I don't know "what" Charles believes other than he apparently sees thru Hybrid Calvinism, and on that point at least, as believers in Christ I walk hand-in-hand with him.
This was Spurgeon's attitude when he opposed aberrant teaching in the Baptist Union -- he welcomed the company and support of the Arminians, Wesleyans, and any others who stood for the same truth CHS stood for.
I think you are just "smarting," Scott, because I am taking away so many of the men whom you brethren in the Founders have FALSELY used as decoration for promotional pieces for selling your Hybrid Calvinism. This is unethical, deceptive advertising, when some use Spurgeon to promote the sale of "Alleine's Alarm," for example, or the erroneous writings by Iain Murray about Spurgeon and John Gill.
I have Spurgeon, John Gill, Stephen Charnock, John Owen, Thomas Watson, the Puritans, A. W. Pink, Andrew Fuller, J. M. Pendleton, John L. Dagg, B. H. Carroll, A. H. Strong and others --ALL who affirm that the New Birth is effected both "BY" THE WORD as the instrumentality and is "OF" THE SPIRIT as the efficent cause or power, just as the LONDON CONFESSION teaches.
You have James White and his flair for "ex-e-geet'n" on your side, that's true, and I am looking for Paul's hoss to purchase for James so the "Jack Daniels" of Hybrid Calvinism can have something to ride to his White Lightn' Distillery other than his bicycle
With his Scottish kilt, James ought to be able to ride that hoss in style in the Easter Parade. -- Bob L. Ross
Anonymous said...
Seems your numbers are so few that according to the SBC view that numbers prove truth of progress that you prove failure to gain and audience which is a sign to me that Truth can't be tainted by such lies.
Can you name one pastor in the SBC who says that "numbers prove truth"? Steve Camp couldn't meet the challenge and I doubt you can either.
Anon, the numbers are growing each day! The stats reveal lots of visits from PHOENIX (wonder who that is?), LOUISVILLE (where a certain seminary exists with a faculty filled with the "born again before faith" position) and a certain place in FLORIDA that is home to a certain member of "The Founders."
Don't expect any of them to show up here at The Calvinist Flyswatter. They might end up with a good theological swat!
Charles
Bob said to Scott,
I think you are just "smarting," Scott, because I am taking away so many of the men whom you brethren in the Founders have FALSELY used as decoration for promotional pieces for selling your Hybrid Calvinism. This is unethical, deceptive advertising ...
Not only that, Bob, but people are starting to question their entire pedobaptism spawned movement. The truth is spreading.
Charles
FOUNDERS SPAWNED BY
PEDO-REGENERATIONISTS?
Charles said,
>>
Not only that, Bob, but people are starting to question their entire pedobaptism spawned movement. The truth is spreading.
Charles
>>
The fact is, Charles, to a great degree the movement may be traced to the English pedobaptist minister and Banner of Truth publisher, IAIN MURRAY, who influenced ERNEST REISINGER, the "founder" of the Founders.
Murray "fathered" the anti-public invitation attitude imbibed by Reisinger and the Founders, and he also promoted the "regeneration before faith" teaching of pedo-regenerationist, Louis Berkhof (who parrots Shedd's "no means" teaching), and other pedo-regenerationists.
Founders is obviously a "linked chain succession" from the "no means" pedo-regenerationists.
Murray is also responsible for the misappropriation of Spurgeon in various ways, as if Spurgeon supported their version of "Calvinism." -- Bob L. Ross
SAVING FAITH
Charles, in regard to Faith, as presented in this thread, the oldest English Baptist Confession of a Calvinistic emphasis is the 1644 London Confession.
It was set forth by "seven congregations" formed of persecuted believers who were "non-conformists" and "anabaptists" who had left the persecuting pedo-baptists and adopted immersion.
This Confession affirms the true Calvinistic view on Faith in relation to Salvation.
No Hybrid-Calvinist holding to the Pedo-regenerationist "born again before faith" vanity can affirm this Confession's view on "Faith" that saves.
It is the same in doctrine as Chapter 14 of the later London Confession of 1689, which says "the elect are enabled to BELIEVE TO THE SAVING OF THEIR SOULS" in consequence of the Spirit's work in using the WORD "in their hearts."
In a word, these Baptists did not believe that sinners were "born again" or "saved" BEFORE they received the "gift of faith" via the WORD and SPIRIT.
Notice what it says in chapter 24 of the 1644 Confession:
"That FAITH is ordinarily BEGOT by the preaching of the Gospel, or Word of Christ, without respect to any power or agency in the creature; but it being wholly PASSIVE, and DEAD in trespasses and sins, DOTH BELIEVE and is CONVERTED by no less power than that which raised Christ from the dead. Romans 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:28; Romans 9:16; Ezekiel 16:16; Romans 3:12, 1:16; Eph. 1:19; Col. 2:12."
etc.
Clearly, this FAITH comes to the "DEAD," "PASSIVE" sinner who "DOTH BELIEVE AND IS CONVERTED" -- not to one already "regenerated," "alive," or "born again," as advocated by --
James White in his debatebook with Dave Hunt,
by R. C. Sproul in his "Chosen By God" book,
by Louis Berkhof in his "Sytematic Theology,"
by W. G. T. Shedd in his "Dogmatic Theology," and
by several Hybrid Calvinists on the Internet who call themselves "Reformed."
As the preached Word was instrumental in the creating of LIFE in Ezekiel's DEAD, DRY BONES, so this old Baptist Confession affirms that the DEAD, PASSIVE SINNER is "begot by the preaching of the Gospel, or Word of Christ" and thereby is BORN AGAIN, receives ETERNAL LIFE, and shall NEVER PERISH.
One may hold this view or not, as he compares it to Scripture, but the fact remains, this was the view of the CALVINISTIC BAPTISTS of the 1600s.
It is NOT the view of those today who follow the Hybrid fantasy that the sinner is "born again before faith" and is actually alive and able to believe-- similar to what the Pelagians teach -- before actually believing.
The Gospel, according to Hybrids' view, would therefore not be suitable for the DEAD, PASSIVE sinner until he is FIRST "BORN AGAIN" and has been given a supernatural "ability" to believe -- the VERY SAME view held by the outright Pelagians who say the sinner has "ability" to believe, having been naturally endowed with that ability by God.
So the Hybrids are in reality teaching the very same idea as the Pelagians -- that at the point just prior to believing the sinner is not DEAD in sins, but he has an "ability" to believe.
This contrasts with the 17th century Baptist/Confessional Calvinist view that by the means of the Word and Spirit, the DEAD, PASSIVE sinner is brought to believe in Christ by the same power that raised Christ from the dead, that gave life to the dry bones, and that raised Lazarus from the dead. -- Bob L. Ross
Charles, in response to your question on the Founders MINISTRY blog as to what an internet troll is, here is the Wikpedia definition:
"A commenter whose sole purpose is to attack the views expressed on a blog and incite a flamewar, for example, a liberal going to a conservative blog, or vice versa. The word trolling means literally 'to fish', ie. when the troll fishes for a clashback from the blog writer and/or pro commentors. Many trolls will leave their remarks on multiple posts and continue to visit the blog, sparking spirited debate amongst the blog's regular readers. Trolls' verbosity can range from eloquent to crass, although most trolls probably fall into the latter category. Originally, trolling only meant the custom where someone was commenting just to get a flamewar going, by using exaggarated points of view not held by themselves (I'll add... not developed by themselves through intense study. Simply being a lackey for someone else's views)"
Let me demonstrate. Reading your blog I have a few questions.
1. Is a James White-wannabe the same as a Bob Ross-wannabe? A bit of the ole 'pot calling the kettle black'.
2. I see that instead of providing a detailed exegesis or a well developed argument you simply vomit up Bob Ross' thinking so I have to ask if your main motivation is 'in obedience to Jesus Christ' or is it 'in obedience to Bob Ross'.
3. Seeing as though the majority of your blogs are simply a platform for Bob Ross I was seriously wondering if you and Bob Ross are actually the same person. Perhaps a younger 'persona' Bob Ross invented.
4. Unlike all the other blogs you ridicule I have yet to see you present anything other than vitriolic ad hominem attacks. So I assume that there is nothing good YOU can write presenting a strong case for your arguments from scripture?
You have just been trolled!
Warrenl, Hello!
Thank you for the definition, and thank you for the troll! If you have spent any time here at all, you know that trollers are welcome at The Calvinist Flyswatter.
You asked good questions. I will try to answer them.
Is a James White-wannabe the same as a Bob Ross-wannabe? A bit of the ole 'pot calling the kettle black'.
A bit the same, perhaps. I don't recall Bob inviting all his wannabes on a "Sovereign Grace" sea cruise. Even if Bob had a cruise, I think I'd rather sail with James White and Steve Camp than Bob. James and Steve hang with R. C. Sproul and other Presbyterians. In most towns the Presbyterians are the ones with the money so James and Steve will probably eat better than Bob.
I see that instead of providing a detailed exegesis or a well developed argument you simply vomit up Bob Ross' thinking
You have not read very much of The Calvinist Flyswatter.
Seeing as though the majority of your blogs are simply a platform for Bob Ross I was seriously wondering if you and Bob Ross are actually the same person. Perhaps a younger 'persona' Bob Ross invented.
Again, you haven't read much of The Calvinist Flyswatter. That question has been answered.
Unlike all the other blogs you ridicule I have yet to see you present anything other than vitriolic ad hominem attacks. So I assume that there is nothing good YOU can write presenting a strong case for your arguments from scripture?
You do not seem to understand the nature of ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem is when, "A makes claim B; there is something objectionable about A, therefore claim B is false."
For example, one "born again before faith" Calvinist recently published the emails from a Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor who wanted his remarks published but did not want to be identified. For whatever the reason, the professor wanted anonymity. Ad hominem fallacy would be to say, "I do not know the identity of the professor so therefore I will not believe his argument." What an incredible logical fallacy! No logical thinker would do that, right?
Please demonstrate to me where you see this kind of fallacy on The Calvinist Flyswatter. Pointing out a history of errors as Bob Ross has done with James White and The Founders is not ad hominem. Neither is revealing to readers that Mark Dever does not want to baptize children, or that Tom Schreiner promotes a "born again before faith" view.
If you want more scripture studies then keep reading. I have one article in a series on Matthew 23:17 with more on the way. Blogging takes time.
Thank you for reading The Calvinist Flyswatter.
Charles
Charles, as stated my questions were to demonstrate what it means to 'troll'. Since that was my intention then by definition:
(1) I don't have to read much of the Calvanist Flyswatter to make any trollish statement.
(2)I am released from backing my statements with any real proof.
Though thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
I do stand by my ad hominem comments. Your posts are replete with them. But all's fair in blog and war I guess.
I found these definitions of Ad Hominen on the Triablogue. To paraphrase...
AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT
Argue from your opponent’s own assumptions and methods. Try to prove that your opponents operating premise is false, or their conclusion is invalid.
It doesn’t prove that your position is true, but it tries to prove your opponent’s position to be false.
AD HOMINEM ATTACK
To attack the character and credentials of your opponent to impeach their credibility.
An ad hominem attack is often characterized by a heavy dose of invective and labeling. As soon as you 'classify' your opponent as something there is nothing more to say—as if mere assignment to a certain class is any sort of argument against one’s membership in said class.
Post a Comment
<< Home