The James White 'Born Again Before Faith' White Lightning Distillery
The below article is from Brother Bob Ross.Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
JAMES WHITE'S LATEST [03/19--2006]
FROM THE "JAMES WHITE 'BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH' WHITE LIGHTNING DISTILLERY & MFG. CO., PHOENIX AZ"
James White -- on his website March 19, 2006 -- said,
>>
Let it be known I believe and profess the confessional statement quoted above; let it be known I object to not a word in Spurgeon's exposition. If you encounter someone confused by others about my views, correct them. If you encounter one who claims to know my heart better than I do and who refuses to accept this confession of faith, dismiss him as the addled ranter he is. There is no reasoning with those who will not listen and who profess personal infallibility on matters about which they are completely ignorant or, worse, dishonest.
>> [Emphasis supplied by Bob Ross]
Dear Charles:
On James' "The Exegeeter's" website today, he quotes from the London Confession of Faith and has a clip from one of C. H. Spurgeon's sermons ("Jan. 5th, 1868"). He gives no reference to where to find the Spurgeon quotation, which actually is in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 57, Sermon # 3275 A KIND OF FIRSTFRUITS, pages 530-532).
We don't mind helping James a little bit every now and then about Spurgeon, for he seems to be rather lax in that area. Most likely, James scanned the quotation from the CD-ROM, which does not have the original page numbers.
But that is not the most significant thing about the part of the sermon which James chose to quote. Where he stopped his quotation from Spurgeon is rather significant when we consider what Spurgeon says, viewed in the context of the Pedobaptist "Hybrid Calvinist" denial that the WORD of God is an instrument used in producing the NEW BIRTH.
Notice where James stops. Spurgeon goes on to say the following:
>>
And what is this Word? What is it that usually brings men to BE BEGOTTEN UNTO A NEW LIFE? The Word, the especial QUICKENING WORD, is the preaching of the doctrine of the cross" (page 532, Vol. 57).
Spurgeon goes on to say,
>>
It is telling him that ?God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;? this it is which brings the heart to God, to peace, to life, to safety." . . .
Oh! then, if you have been QUICKENED BY THE WORD, tell out the Word. If the GOSPEL HAS BROUGHT YOU TO SALVATION, tell that gospel out.
Whisper into every sinner?s ear the fact that Christ died for sinners. Make it known wherever your influence can reach, that whosoever believeth in the Lord Jesus Christ hath everlasting life (pages 532, 533).
>>
I don't know if James has ever published the London Confession on Effectual Calling on his website or a quotation of this nature from C. H. Spurgeon. Anyhow, I applaud his quoting these sources, both of which refute the "pre-faith new birth" theory elsewhere promoted by James in his writings and in the debate with Dave Hunt.
To my knowledge, this may be the first time the TRUTH on the new birth has been put on James's website. In his own "Statement of Faith," for example, he does not have any reference to the "Word" or "Gospel" being the instrumentality used by the Holy Spirit in the New Birth.
In view of these recent materials on James's website, are we now to expect a public recantation of James' past (?) "new birth before faith" doctrine?
I doubt it.
The "spirit" pervading James' comments after the materials he quoted does not indicate that James has really changed his mind about anything, or that he now stands for the "WORD AND SPIRIT" teaching of the Confession and of C. H. Spurgeon.
When James comes out and repudiates his "born again before faith" doctrine for which he has contended, we will know he is serious when he says he agrees with the London Confession and Spurgeon.
When Dr. John MacArthur came out in favor of the creedal doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, he plainly said that he had changed his thinking on the subject, and that he no longer taught his former view. He wrote and published a lengthy article, recanting the "incarnational sonship" view. It is now on the Internet. >http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sonship.htm<
Dr. MacArthur did the right thing, and he gained respect for his action. Will James White follow the good example of John MacArthur, and publish a recantation of the pedobaptist teaching on "pre-faith new birth"? -- Bob L.
posted by Charles @ 5:55 PM
14 Comments:
Dear Brother Ross,
Thank you for clarifying what I believed to be the case regarding James White!
I agree with you, there should be a public recant of former things believed if he's abandoned those beliefs. James is certainly not averse to explaining why he's right about something so I think it no minor problem for him to tell us from Scripture what changed his mind.
In Him,
Eye
CONCERNING JAMES WHITE,
EYE said,
"I agree with you, there should be a public recant of former things believed if he's abandoned those beliefs."
Unfortunately, Eye, James does not appear to be saying any more than he has always said. He claims to believe the Confession and Spurgeon, then writes and debates in defense of the Hybrid Calvinist view of Berkhof, Shedd, Sproul, etc. -- mixing Confessional Presbyterianism on the efficiency of the Spirit with the Hardshell view of denying the instrumentality of the Word in the act of regeneration.
If he wants anyone to believe that he believes the Confession, then let him recant the Pedobaptist "born again before" teaching which he has been advocating. He will never get away with trying to cover his tracks by saying he "affirms" the Confession and does not disagree with Spurgeon. The Hardshells tried that for seveal years, then in the early 1900s they met and "abridged" the Confession to suit their SPIRIT ALONE theory.
If he wants to claim he is advocating the Confession's view, I will be happy to meet him in a Public Debate and take the position that he DOES NOT affirm the Confession's view.
I informed Dr. Caner, with whom I differ in theology, that James does NOT speak for all professing Calvinists, and that he is advocating an aberrant view on the New Birth.
I did not want Caner or anyone else to think that James is teaching Confessional Calvinism. He is teaching the view of Pedobaptists Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul and others like them -- not to mention his view is consistent with the view of the Hardshell Baptists for whom James has preached.
I will not be a bit surprised if he flops over to the Hardshells, just like Lassere Bradley Jr. did years ago. Bradly claimed he agreed with the Confession, then finally went to the Hardshells and has been their leading spokesman for years via radio. James may find a similar place among them. -- Bob L. Ross
The blink still cannot see obviously. You read and you cannot comprehend so you should move on..... James White has done nothing but use what you seem to think you are an expert on Mr. Ross and prove his point and you all still speak falsely against him. Shame on you. I guess Charles and Bob Ross are one and the same or Charles doesn't have a mind of his on....
Mr. Ross:
Dr. White has made clear what he believes. He freely admitted (which was part of the Spurgeon quote he cited) that God doesn't regenerate people apart from the Word of God. When the Word of God is preached God does His work. He regenerates people and then faith and repentance spring out of that regeneration instantaneously.
I really don't see the point in goinf around and around over this. You and Charles just seem intent on attacking Dr. White. Why the smear campaign? Why continue to insist he believes something other than what he says he believes?
You two are really just making yourselves look pretty silly.
SDG,
Dave
ANONYMOUS said,
" I guess Charles and Bob Ross are one and the same or Charles doesn't have a mind of his on.... ""
I's sorry, Anonymous, if you can't discern that Charles and I are two distinct persons, I can't really take seriously any of your other comments. You seem to be intoxicated from lapping up "White Lightnin'"--
Bob L. Ross
DAVID HEWITT said,
"Dr. White has made clear what he believes. He freely admitted (which was part of the Spurgeon quote he cited) that God doesn't regenerate people apart from the Word of God. When the Word of God is preached God does His work. He regenerates people and then faith and repentance spring out of that regeneration instantaneously.
"
Sorry, David, but you are simply REPEATING what James teaches and what Charles and I reject -- that faith and repentance are not integral to the act of regeneration by the WORD and SPIRIT -- which is the view affirmed by the Confession, Spurgeon, Dr. Dagg, Dr. B. H. Carroll, etc.
New Birth has not taken place until faith has been produced, Christ is embraced in the heart of the believer, and love is shed abroad therein. All of these spiritual graces are effected by the WORD and SPIRIT, and then one may be said to have been BORN AGAIN -- and not before.
It is "he that BELIEVETH" who has been born again -- and that is the case, even on the basis of James' own exegesis of 1 John 5:1.
"Smear campaign"? James has sufficiently smeared himself by affirming the the Hybrid Calvinist idea -- that in regeneration the Holy Spirit produces the New Birth BEFORE faith is created by the Holy Spirit's using the instrumentality of the Word -- in accordance with the teachings of Berkhof, Shedd, Sproul and other Pedobaptists.
There is no necessity for anyone's "smearing" James -- he is doing a good enough job of it without any assistance. -- Bob L. Ross
DAVID HEWITT said,
"You two are really just making yourselves look pretty silly."
David, that is just about what James White told me a few years ago when he scolded me for contending against the "incarnational sonship" view which was advocated by Dr. John MacArthur.
I hope James will follow Dr. J-Mac's example and recant what he is now teaching. -- Bob L. Ross
ANONYMOUS OR JAMES WHITE?
Dear Charles,
Some seem to think I am you and you are me.
The "breath" of Anonymous smells a lot like James White, don't you think? I wonder if Anon wears a Scottish kilt? -- Bob Ross
Mr. Ross:
Somehow I'm just not getting the same things that you are from Spurgeon. Besides, even given what he or others have said, is that even our point? Should we not take the Scriptures as our ultimate source, and base our understandings on sound exegesis? I would think you'd agree with me in answering yes to that question.
I read over a good portion of Dr. MacArthur's recanting in that article you linked to. I would agree with what he did -- eternal Sonship is clearly the right doctrine, and when his understanding increased, he was wise to make public the correction since it was published material in public where he erred.
Now, I would have to wonder -- you said:
"David, that is just about what James White told me a few years ago when he scolded me for contending against the "incarnational sonship" view which was advocated by Dr. John MacArthur."
What was the context of Dr. White's scolding of you as you say? I'd really like to know.
I also really cannot comprehend how you, Charles, and perhaps others would rail against James White in this way, saying that he doesn't believe that the Gospel is critical when someone is regenerated. In his post on his blog, he said just the opposite, a post that you even cited. I truly am confused, and am having a hard time believing that you are not out to get him in some way. I would love to be wrong, but I'm doubtful I am.
James White, whether you agree with him or not (and it is pretty obivous you don't) is a man who works tirelessly to defend the truth of God against many errors, including Islam, Mormonism, post-modernism, attacks against inerrancy and yes, against paedobaptism.
Were he to realize that something that he professed to be true was in fact in error and he published that error, I suspect that he'd make public the corrections.
I don't expect him to do this with regeneration. :) I also think you've misunderstood the Reformed position on this matter, and therefore Dr. White's position.
In any case, please do move on to different subject matter. IF the purpose of this blog is to glorify God, then constantly attacking a brother in Christ doesn't seem to get that across. You disagree with him and think him in error -- that is clear. Please move on to other things.
SDG,
David Hewitt
DAVID HEWETT ON JAMES WHITE
>>
James White, whether you agree with him or not (and it is pretty obivous you don't) is a man who works tirelessly to defend the truth of God against many errors, including Islam, Mormonism, post-modernism, attacks against inerrancy and yes, against paedobaptism.
Were he to realize that something that he professed to be true was in fact in error and he published that error, I suspect that he'd make public the corrections.
>>
David, I have probably known James longer than you. We promoted James in the early 90s, advertised his book on King James Onlyism in our magazine, and were encouraged by the work he did against cults.
It was when James got off track and jumped in to blast me in regard to John MacArthur about "incarnational sonship" that I first realized James was not the theologian I had thought. Then when he fell on his face in the debate on Calvinism, that was further evidence of his lack.
If James would stick with the King James Only and anti-cult type of work, I think he would be more useful in the Kingdom of God. What he has done otherwise has been detrimental to Calvinistic theology in more ways than one.
Also, I think his obvious lust for debating is not good. I have had many debates, and I never "pushed" to get into any of them. I was either challenged or invited to participate. I have never had a debate in which I was the Challenger. They have always challenged me. I have proposed two or three debates when I thought they might be of value, but James is a "seeker" of debates, and even evidently pays for people to go on cruises and engage in debates. I don't think debating is all that significant. -- Bob L. Ross
JUST THOUGHT BOB AND CHARLES WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT JAMES WHITE WILL BE SPEAKING AT THE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AT METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE IN LONDON !!! WHAT ABOUT THAT - DID YOU AND CHARLES GET YOUR INVITES?
THIS COULD BE SEEN AS GREAT CORRECTION TO ALL THE WHITE MALCONTENTS AND FALSE WITNESSES.
Bob, Hello!
Dear Charles,
Some seem to think I am you and you are me.
Some people never learn, Bob.
The "breath" of Anonymous smells a lot like James White, don't you think? I wonder if Anon wears a Scottish kilt?
James has such a sense of humor! He is so funny!
Charles
I'm sorry. Are you saying that Spurgeon was NOT a calvinist?
Are you aware that no calvinist has ever said that one is regenerated without FIRST hearing God's Word? I thought that was one of the critiques leveled at calvinists - NO ONE is saved unless he hears the gospel preached. The hearing of the Word is the means God uses to regenerate his sheep.
I do not mean to offend, but it seems you don't quite understand the Doctrines of Grace if you think calvinists believe that one is saved outside and before hearing the preaching of the Word.
I apologize if I misunderstood you.
May the Lord be with you.
.357 IS OF THE SAME MIND AS WE ON WHAT CONSTITUTES CREEDAL CALVINISM
.357 said,
>>
The hearing of the Word is the means God uses to regenerate his sheep.
>>
That is precisely what we believe here, .357.
What we are opposing is the denial of this truth by Hybrid Calvinists, as in the writings of Shedd, Berkhof, James White, and any of their disciples in the Founders and among the "Reformed," etc.
They teach that an "elect" person is "born again before" God creates faith by the WORD AND SPIRIT, and you obviously are not that type of "Calvinist."
If you will read my post on "REGENERATION AND CALVINISM" in another thread, I think you will see that the "Calvinism" of our Confessions of Faith stands for, as you say, "The hearing of the Word is the means God uses to regenerate his sheep."
Thanks for your input. -- Bob L. Ross
Post a Comment
<< Home