Baptist Faith & Message vs. Pre-faith New Birth
Reformed Calvinists have taken a liking recently to looking at the Baptist Faith and Message for support of their heresy that a person is born again before he is saved. One writer on the subject has been Gene Bridges who blogs here, there, and everywhere. (Where do you find the time, Gene?)In this article, Brother Bob Ross conclusively refutes this theory. The BF&M does not teach that a person is born again before placing faith in Christ. Bob also proves that if a person believes in "born again before faith," he cannot accept the Baptist Faith and Message as a statement of faith! To quote Brother Bob, "if you hold to the pedo-regenerationist theory, you do not hold the BF&M and therefore are not a Southern Baptist in doctrine!"
Where does this leave Dr. Tom Schreiner and the other professors at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who teach regeneration before faith? They are required to sign the BF&M in order to teach at the seminary. How can they do so in good conscience!
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Pilgrimpub@aol.com
Subject: BAPTIST FAITH & MESSAGE" vs. PRE-FAITH NEW BIRTH [04/14--2006]
DOES THE "BAPTIST FAITH & MESSAGE" TEACH THAT
ONE IS "BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH"? [04/14--2006]
A Pastor in Georgia, who is affiliated with the Founders Ministries, evidently has a serious misunderstanding about the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, the Southern Baptist Convention's Statement of Faith.
The sad fact is, however, he is not alone in this error, for it appears that a number of Founders' affiliates agree with him, and even one or more professors on the Faculty at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
The Georgia Pastor addressed a comment to The Calvinist Flyswatter blog as follows:
>>
Bob and Charles,
Please read Article 4 of the Baptist Faith and Message (Regeneration or New birth). How do you square dance around this? Regeneration precedes Faith!
>>
I thought perhaps I had "missed" something in the BF&M, so I went to the SBC website to make sure it read as I remembered. The following are --
EXCERPTS FROM THE "BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE" >>http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iv<<
>>
II. God . . .
C. God the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, fully divine. He inspired holy men of old to write the Scriptures. Through illumination He enables men to UNDERSTAND truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. At the MOMENT of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. . . . .
IV. Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation INCLUDES regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers BECOME new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.
. . .
V. God's Purpose of Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends ALL THE MEANS in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.
>>
BOB'S COMMENTS:
Nothing in this BF&M indicates that Southern Baptists -- including 2-point Calvinist Adrian Rogers -- endorsed the theory of "born again before faith." The 2-point Calvinist, Adrian Rogers, helped draft this BF&M, and he was not as strong on Calvinism as 5-point Calvinist R. Albert Mohler, and Rogers would have NEVER agreed to a statement of faith which affirmed "born again before faith." The Founders Ministries, of all people, know this, for Rogers was often in conflict with the Founders on doctrinal issues.
Furthermore, it is plain that the statement has "regeneration" as "part of "salvation," and it says that "There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."
Therefore, there is "no regeneration" apart from faith, according to the statement of faith.
When we put this statement beside the pedo-regeneration theory of Shedd, Berkhof, and Sproul, THERE IS NO COMPARISON!
These Pedobaptists have BABIES REGENERATED by a "Direct Operation" of the Spirit without the use of Truth as a "Means," and before the babies are even capable of "understanding" and "believing" in Christ.
They also claim that adults are regenerated the same way -- by a "direct operation" without the necessary use of Truth as the "Means" and before the sinner "understands" and "believes" the Gospel.
My brother, if you hold to the pedo-regenerationist theory, you do not hold the BF&M and therefore are not a Southern Baptist in doctrine!
It appears that there are some in the SBC who are unwittingly contributing toward making the Convention a "Hardshell Baptist" organization, and if the BF&M meant what the Georgia Pastor alleges, the SBC would indeed be affirming the Hardshell and Pedo-regenerationist teaching that "Regeneration precedes Faith."
By "regeneration" they mean the NEW BIRTH itself, and the idea is that one is BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH is created by the Holy Spirit's blessing on the Word of God as the means of bringing the sinner to faith.
While some few in the past may have broadly used the term "regeneration" to include the pre-faith influence of the Holy Spirit, it is obvious that they never intended to affirm that one is "born again" before faith, but that the initial internal influence of the Holy Spirit was at the most only a preparatory influence to the creation of the faith which is the new birth (1 John 5:4).
All evangelical Christians believe in the pre-faith influences of the Holy Spirit who blesses both the Word and any other Providential "means" to create conviction and concern in the lost sinner. However, the "Hardshell" Baptists and the Pedo-regenerationists are the only professing Christians to my knowledge who actually teach that such pre-faith influences are evidence that the sinner has already been "born again before faith."
Southern Baptists need to oppose this theory so as to preserve the Convention from the killing effects of this theological heterodoxy -- a heresy which helped to split the Baptists in the 1800s and became the theological foundation of anti-missionism and anti-evangelistic activity. Creedal Calvinists and less-than-Calvinists alike should take a stand against this view.
This theory is not as great a threat to the life of Pedobaptist churches inasmuch as the vast majority of the Pedobaptist members are baptized as babies and enrolled as church members. But with Baptists, this theory tends to stifle strong evangelistic efforts, appeals to the lost to come to Christ, and public or open confession Christ as Saviour, as commanded in Scripture.
posted by Charles @ 11:51 AM
61 Comments:
THANKS AGAIN, CHARLES . . .
Charles, you are rendering an invaluable service to Baptists -- and in fact, all true Creedal Calvinists -- by your blog which is devoted to swatting the false "Calvinism" on the Internet and elsewhere.
I am humbly grateful to be able to post materials here so profusely. You have a perception on the issue of "pre-faith regeneration" that surpasses even the professed theologians who are apparently blind to the deceptive heterodoxy of this error.
If you see any Hybrid Calvinist on the Internet who is attempting to pervert, distort, twist, or otherwise mutilate a Baptist Confession of Faith, as if it affirmed this palabberous piece of pious pedo-regenerationist phantasmagoria, please call it to my attention.
Nothing pleases me more than to respond to those who attack the Creedal Calvinist Gospel of Christ by teaching "another gospel" which alleges that sinners are "born again before faith." -- Bob L. Ross, 3 John 2.
FROM MY EMAIL . . .
Robert McKay said . . .
> There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.<
This alone invalidates the pre-faith regeneration theory, for if salvation includes regeneration (as another portion, which I've not quoted, says) then regeneration is a thing which cannot exist - according to the confession - apart from faith. It cannot, therefore, exist before faith.
> A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers BECOME new creatures in Christ Jesus.<
This is also conclusive. It is not unbelievers who receive regeneration, but believers.
One has to wonder whether those in the Convention who espouse regeneration before faith understand the Convention's position, and if they do, why they remain. This isn't, after all, a minor issue like the color of the carpet in the auditorium (though some Baptists will fight tooth and nail over just such issues), but a major point - the way in which God grants salvation to His people. It affects things not merely in a theoretical way, but in a very practical one - it affects how one preaches the Gospel (or, for that matter, whether one preaches the Gospel, for if the Spirit works prior to and apart from means, preaching to the lost is a waste of time).
Were I to differ so fundamentally on such a fundamental matter with my church, I would depart therefrom, that being the only honest course available. One has to wonder why these people remain in the Convention, having such fundamental differences with it.
Robert McKay
SYNERGISM?
Charles said . . .
Reformed Calvinists have taken a liking recently to looking at the Baptist Faith and Message for support of their heresy that a person is born again before he is saved. One writer on the subject has been Gene Bridges who blogs here, there, and everywhere. (Where do you find the time, Gene?)
BOB to CHARLES:
Charles, I read a bit of Gene's extensive remarks, and I think the man is rather way off base in regard to what he calls "synergism"so far as it relates to the Creedal Calvinistic view of the New Birth.
So far as Creedal Calvinism is concerned, "synergism" has no part whatsoever to play in the New Birth.
The Creedal view is that Faith is CREATED in the sinner by the power of the Word and Spirit, just as in the illustration we have used of the Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37.
There was movement -- a "noise and a shaking" -- among the bones, and they came together BEFORE any breath or life was in them, illustrating how the Word of God works in the power of the Spirit in the sinner prior to the New Birth. There is a lot of conviction and concern going on in the sinner's heart and mind before he is born again.
The Spirit blesses the Word to sinners who are DEAD IN TRESPASSES AND SINS who are afar off from God, and there is "movement" in the sinner BEFORE the creation of faith is experienced.
BUT THAT IS NO MORE THE "NEW BIRTH" THAN WERE THE BONES BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE BEFORE THEY RECEIVED BREATH.
Bridges evidently denies that the Word of God has quickening power, but Jesus said, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing [synergism?]: the WORDS that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are LIFE"
(John 6:63).
This power is also illustrated in the case of DEAD Lazarus (John 11).
Jesus said, "Lazarus come forth," and "he that WAS DEAD came forth."
Lazarus did not come back to life BEFORE Jesus spoke, but AFTER HE SPOKE.
He did not raise himself [synergism?], but he was raised by the quickening power of the WORD of God, the same Word that spoke the world into existence.
If Lazarus had been made alive BEFORE Jesus spoke, anyone could have called out, "Lazarus, come forth," and Lazarus could have come forth since he would have ALREADY been alive!
The Hybrid Calvinists such as Gene have the "cart before the horse."
No one is born again by "synergism," but by the creative power of the Word and Spirit of God.
Gene is clearly a semi-Pelagian, believing that the sinner must be CAPABLE of faith in order to believe.
Creedal Calvinism denies this, and holds that faith is the GIFT of God, produced by the Word and the Spirit in the hitherto DEAD sinner.
Notice how the Calvinistic 1644 Baptist Confession puts it:
>>
XXIV.
That faith is ordinarily begotten by the preaching of the Gospel, or Word of Christ, without respect to any power or capacity in the creature, but it is wholly passive, being DEAD in sins and trespasses, DOTH BELIEVE and is converted by no less power, than that which raised Christ from the dead.
>>
You see, this Baptist Confession has the sinner "wholly passive" and "DEAD in sins," yet by the power of God the passive and dead sinner "DOTH BELIEVE."
He comes forth from the dead just as Lazarus did by the power of the Word and Spirit.
Would Gene call that "synergism"? That is the only regeneration worthy of being called "monergism!"
Does Gene believe that the sinner is "wholly passive and dead" when faith is "begotten" in him? Not if Gene holds to the "born again before faith" theory, for he has the sinner ALREADY born again BEFORE the sinner believes!
That simply will not fit the Hybrid Calvinist "Ordo Paludal" pawned off on the Hybrids thru Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul and the pedo-regenerationist camp.
The Hybrids have the sinner BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH, whereas this Confession has the sinner DEAD BEFORE FAITH.
Note what the same Confession says in Article 22:
>>
That FAITH is the GIFT of God wrought in the hearts of the elect by the Spirit of God, whereby they come to see, know, and believe the truth of the Scriptures, and not only so, but the excellency of them above all other writings and things in the world, as they hold forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power of the fullness of the Spirit in its workings and operations; and thereupon are enabled to cast the weight of their souls upon this truth thus believed.
>>
When the Spirit of God moves in the heart of the dead sinner and blesses the Word, the result is not merely the "regeneration" advocated by the Hybrids -- which is without REPENTANCE, FAITH AND LOVE -- but is a regeneration which by the Word of God IMPARTS REPENTANCE, FAITH, AND LOVE for Christ as Saviour.
From article IV. 2
IT is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
What is the "IT" to which the sinner responds in repentance and faith?
I don't see how I can get around that IT is regeneration, based on a simple reading of article IV A.
Whether that interpretation is Biblical or not is not my point? But it does seem to say that regeneration preceeds repentance and faith in that one article.
DAVID JONES ON "SAVING FAITH"
Charles, I was doing some reading in a wonderful reprint of the Minutes of the Philadelphia Association 1707-1807, and came upon a Circular Letter by Pastor DAVID JONES (1736-1820).
Here is an excerpt of how Pastor Jones presented this subject:
>>
Saving faith may be thus defined, "That grace whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, which is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word." [Quoted from the 1689 London Confession, Article 14].
By this grace the person is enabled to believe all divine truths revealed in the holy scriptures; and in particular to apprehend the Lord Jesus Christ and to rely alone on his atoning blood for acceptance in the sight of God.
The apostle, speaking of salvation said, "By grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God," Eph. ii. 8.
The same apostle informs us that the Ephesians were dead in trespasses and sins, and were by nature the children of wrath even as others; but when the GOSPEL of Christ was preached, the Holy Ghost working with the Word, opened their hearts to receive it, and by his powerful operations implanted this grace, by which they were enabled to believe the record that God has given of his Son.
The precious grace of faith is a free and sovereign gift of God, conveyed through the power of the Holy Ghost, and the instrumentality of the word; and is co-existent with regeneration, if not an essential part of it; and as it is not of ourselves, we see that all boasting is excluded, so that we may all say, "by the grace of God, we are what we are."
When the apostle was enumerating the fruits of the Spirit, he mentions faith as one, Gal. v. 22. This is a truth which everyone, who is born of God, knows, and in substance will acknowledge.
>>
We see from this that Pastor Jones affirmed:
(1) Saving faith is that faith by which sinners believe "to the saving of their souls."
(2) Saving faith is "the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts."
(3) Saving faith is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word."
(4) Saving faith believes divine truth and "apprehends the Lord Jesus Christ."
(5) Saving faith is a gift of God to those "DEAD in trespasses and sins," and given to them "when the GOSPEL of Christ was preached, the Holy Ghost working WITH THE WORD, opened their hearts to RECEIVE it, and by his powerful operations implanted this grace, by which they were enabled to BELIEVE the record that God has given of his Son."
(6) Saving faith is "conveyed through the POWER of the HOLY GHOST, and the INSTRUMENTALITY of the WORD."
(7) Saving faith is "CO-EXISTENT with regeneration, if not an ESSENTIAL PART part of it."
(8) Saving faith is one of the "fruits of the Spirit" (Gal. v. 2).
(9) Saving faith as here presented "is a truth which everyone, who is born of God, knows, and in substance will acknowledge."
Notice how greatly this presentation by Pastor Jones differs from the "born again before faith" heterodoxy of the pedo-regenerationists and those Baptists who accept that view that "regeneration precedes faith."
That aberrant view contemplates the sinner not as one "DEAD IN SIN" to whom the Gospel is preached, and in whom the Spirit works with the Word, opening the hearts to receive it and to believe on the Son -- but rather, the sinner is supposedly "born again before believing" the Word of God and before believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour.
comonTater said...
From article IV. 2
IT is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
What is the "IT" to which the sinner responds in repentance and faith?
BOB'S COMMENT:
Seems clear to me:
"IT" is--
A change of heart -- wrought by the Holy Spirit -- through conviction of sin -- to which (all of the above) the sinner responds in repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
You might understand it this way, from another direction:
The Holy Spirit in his preliminary workings in the sinner, using His "sword," the Word of God, as His operational intrumentality, brings about conviction of sin, which leads to a change of heart, which heart responds in repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Once that has been accomplished bya the power of the Word and Spirit, you can say that a sinner has been born again.
Don't you find that is the way it was in your case, if you have been born again?
Conviction by itself is not the new birth, for there is yet no faith in Christ (1 John 5:4).
A change of heart by itself is not the new birth, for there is yet no faith.
Repentance by itself alone is not the new birth -- although the fact is repentance cannot really be separated from faith if it is "repentance unto life."
Faith in Christ comprehends all the above and is the consummating gift of grace in that work of the Spirit which constitutes the New Birth (1 John 5:4, 5:1).
"He that HATH THE SON hath life; and he that HATH NOT THE SON OF GOD hath not life" (1 John 5:12).
If you have a man "born again before faith," you have a man born again who DOES NOT HAVE THE SON WHO IS LIFE.
So, of what benefit is it to have been "born again" and yet be without the Son and therefore be WITHOUT LIFE? You must HAVE THE SON TO HAVE LIFE THAT MEANS ANYTHING.
The Holy Spirit does not give a sinner a New Birth which has no faith in the Son and no love for the Son -- such as taught by the pedo-regeneration theory.
A LOT OF PALABBER BY BRIDGES
Charles, just a note before I go to lunch.
I read some on the Gene Bridges' link, and he seems seriously deficient in his concept regarding the New Hampshire Confession.
For example, he says --
>>
It is worth noting that at that time Arminian Baptist confessions always contained statements about the freedom of the will. The New Hampshire Confession goes out of its way to exclude this statement, which is the first clue as to the intent of the author.
>>
The fact is, the NHC refers to the "free agency of man" in Article 9.
Also, it would be rather unseemly for the NHC to "exclude" reference to the freedom of the will since the Philadelphia/London Confession has an entire chapter on "Free Will" (Chapter 9).
Furthermore, the 1925, 1963, and 2006 SBC statements all affirm the "free agency of man," and the Southern Seminary's Abstract of Principles affirms "the FREE WILL and responsibility of intelligent creatures."
If the NHC went out of its way to exclude free will, evidently James P. Boyce thought free will should be "restored"!
It seems that Gene has himself a first class puzzle to put together if he intends to "prove" that these statements of faith somehow substantiate that a lost sinner is "born again before faith," if that is his goal.
Gene appears to hold -- as I have noted elsewhere -- a semi-Pelagian view, apparently affirming that the "dead" sinner must be "born again" in order to have the "ability" to believe.
This corresponds with the Pelagian view that the lost sinner has "ability" to believe in response to the command to do so. Both these views conflict with Creedal Calvinism.
The Creedal Calvinist view -- as I have demonstrated on this blogsite - is that the sinner is "DEAD in sins," and faith is necessarily produced by the power of the Spirit's using the means of the Word of God to produce or create faith in the "passive" and "DEAD" sinner, which constitutes the New Birth.
This work and gift of faith is a Divine "creation." Gene and the Pelagians have faith being something which the UNBELIEVING sinner has the "ability" to do for himself.
We have used the case of Ezekiel's Dry Bones in chapter 37 to illustrate how this New Birth is accomplished in conjunction with the preaching of the Word of God.
Does Gene think the dead, dry bones were "alive" when there was "a noise and a shaking, and the bones came together" BEFORE there was "breath" in them?
Does Gene have any evidence that the preliminary workings by the Holy Spirit in the dead sinner is the New Birth BEFORE the sinner has received the Divinely created gift of faith by the Spirit's use of the means of the Word to produce this faith in the sinner? -- Bob L. Ross
WHITE vs CANERS -- Or, What Are They Debating?
Charles, since we are on a thread that has to do with a Confession of Faith, I wish to contribute the following observation.
My point here is that BOTH James White and the Caner brothers are theologically at least semi-Pelagian.
Whether one agrees with Creedal Calvinism or not, the fact remains that it views the pre-faith state of the lost sinner as "DEAD in trespasses and in sins." (For example, see Article 24 of the 1644 London Confession).
While James White and the Caner Brothers both believe in some form of "man's depravity" -- or however they describe man's sinful state -- neither of them holds that prior to faith in Christ, the sinner is in the state such as Creedal Calvinism describes him, namely -- "DEAD in trespasses and in sins."
The Caners hold that despite man's depravity, the sinner is constituted with sufficient "ability" to believe in Christ.
Likewise, James White teaches that the sinner is "born again" before faith -- which supposed "regeneration" thereby endues or capacitates the sinner with the "ability" to believe.
Both the Caners and White are therefore in basic agreement on the supposed "ability" of the sinner PRIOR to the sinner's believing in Christ.
Theologically, this could be classified as a form of "Pelagianism" -- the idea that the sinner has the spiritual "ability" to believe in response to the command to believe.
This is also the case with all non-Creedal Calvinists of the Hybrid Calvinist variety -- such as Dr. Tom Schreiner, R. C. Sproul, Gene Bridges, Scott Morgan, and those "Reformed" and Founders affiliates who hold to "born again before faith."
So what will they be debating? --since they agree on the unbeliever's pre-faith ability to believe? Bob L. Ross
NEW HAMPSHIRE & PHILADELPHIA CONFESSIONS vs "Born Again Before Faith"
Gene Bridges comments on the New Hampshire Confessin of Faith as follows:
..
Thomas J. Nettles writes, "Many have interpreted the contents of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith as an attempt to modify the strong Calvinism of earlier days into something more palatable to the tastes of nineteenth-century churches. It is true that it not as detailed or as lengthy as the Philadelphia Confession, but it is also true that the substance of its doctrine remains unchanged."
>>
If Nettles is correct, then the Philadelphia Confession is where we must go for the substance of doctrine on Free Will and the New Birth.
And in the Philadelphia Confession we find that it does not teach that sinners are (1) "born again before faith," nor (2) are they saved by the efforts of free will -- so neither does the NHC teach these ideas.
In the PCF, Effectual Calling is "by His Word and Spirit," not by a "direct operation" of the Spirit apart from the Word or Gospel, such as taught by Hardshell Baptists and Hybrid Calvinists (Chapter 10).
According to the PCF, in the effectual call of lost, unsaved, "DEAD" sinners, the Spirit uses the Word for "enlightening their minds spiritually and SAVINGLY to UNDERSTAND the things of God . . . effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so they come most freely, being made willing by His grace" (Chapter 10, paragraph 1).
This is neither "born again before faith,"' nor salvation by free will.
Also, on SAVING FAITH, Chapter 14 of the PCF, saving faith is said to be "ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word," and by this means of the Word "the elect are enabled to BELIEVE TO THE SAVING OF THEIR SOULS," and this is described as being "the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts."
There is not a pinch of "born again before faith" teaching in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, nor of salvation by free will. See the post, DAVID JONES ON "SAVING FAITH" which demonstrates what was believed about "Saving Faith" in the Philadelphia Association.
If the PCF teaches that the elect "believe to the saving of their souls," it clearly does not teach that the elect are "born again" before they believe.
Thus, if TOM NETTLES is correct, the "doctrine remains unchanged" from the PCF to the New Hampshire Confession, and soneither Confession teaches that the elect are "born again before faith" nor by free will
LANDMARKISM?
GENE BRIDGES said . . .
>>You can take the Arminian out of the Landmark Baptist, but you can’t take the Landmark Baptist out of that particular Calvinist. He certainly argues like one.>>
I suppose Gene is either "behind the times" considerably, or else he is just clowing around.
I left Landmarkism in 1964, and wrote a book, OLD LANDMARKISM AND THE BAPTISTS, refuting the Landmark theories of J. R. Graves.
Note this website: http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/writings.htm#_ROSS_10
To my knowledge, I am the only person who was once a Landmarker who wrote a book in refutation of it.
Gene is not only deficient in his knowledge regarding Confessions of Faith, he is deficient in his knowledge about me -- if he thinks I am a Landmarker. Is "deficiency" a mark of those who were "born again before faith," or what? -- Bob L. Ross
SYNERGISH?
Gene Brigges said . . .
Why Gene thinks he is dealing with "synergism" -- if he has read this blogsite -- is indeed a mystery.
We have expounded CREEDAL CALVINISTM,which is that DEAD sinners that are PASSIVE are born again solely by the efficient power of the Holy Spirit in His use of the Gospel or Word of God to create faith in these DEAD sinners, who believe to the SAVING OF THEIR SOULS.
How one gets "synergism" out of that is as great a mystery as how one could believe that a sinner could conceivably be "born again before faith." -- Bob L. Ross
"Does Mr. Ross agree with the Second London Baptist Confession?"
asks Gene Bridges.
I wonder, has Mr. Bridges not read my extensive article on this website on "REGENERATION - CALVINISM," in which I show what the Second London Confession teaches? -- the the New Birth is effected by the Holy Spirit's use of the Word of God in bringing DEAD sinners to faith in Christ?
The Second London is the same as the Philadelphia, and Mr. Bridges cannot find a smattering of "born again before faith doctrine" in that Confession.
CORRECTED POST:
Somehow the post at Sunday, April 16, 2006 7:50:01 PM was fragmented. Here is how it should read:
THE ROOT OF THE MATTER
GENE BRIDGES said . . .
>>I would recommend folks to remember that the BFM is an umbrella document whose heritage is not simply rooted in EY Mullins, Hershel Hobbs, or Adrian Rogers. Rather it is rooted in New Hampshire Confession. If folks want to discuss "original intent" of the words, then both its history in the SBC as the BFM and the parent document, the NH Confession should be considered.<<
BOB'S COMMENT:
If Tom Nettles is correct, however, for the "substance" or "root" of the New Hampshire Confession, we must go back to the Philadelphia Confession.
And the PROBLEM which Gene and all Hybrid Calvinists have is this: NONE of these Confessions teach that the elect are "born again before faith."
I have demonstrated that these Confessions are not PELAGIAN, or SEMI-PELAGIAN, but that the elect are viewed by these Confessions as "passive" and "DEAD in trespasses" and in sins, and are not born again until they "believe to the saving of their souls, as the Holy Spirit uses the means of the Word to enlighten their minds, change their hearts, and thus cause them to come to Christ in repentance and faith.
There is not a grain of "born again before faith" phantasmagoria in ANY of the Baptist Confessions we have mentioned. -- Bob L. Ross
Brother Bob wrote, "Gene is not only deficient in his knowledge regarding Confessions of Faith, he is deficient in his knowledge about me
He must spend more time blogging than reading.
Charles
NO "REGENERATION BEFORE FAITH" IN THE BAPTIST CONFESSION
Gene Bridges said . . .
This confession clearly states that when a man is effectually called, he is regenerated, raised to newness of life, and that enables him to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in the call of the gospel. Just to make this clear, it is stating that regeneration precedes faith!
Sorry, Gene, the Confession does NOT say that "regeneration precedes faith."
In fact, I will give you $500 if you find the word "regeneration" or "precedes" in that Article 10! In fact, I will give you $1000 if you can find "regeneration precedes faith" in ANY of these Confessions: 1644, 1689, 1742 PCF, 1925, 1963, 2000, or the Abtact of Principles!
The Article plainly teaches that Effecual Calling is "by His WORD AND SPIRIT . . . ENLIGHTENING their minds SPRITUALLY AND SAVINGLY
to UNDERSTAND the things of God . . . and effectually drawing them TO JESUS CHRIST."
Does that sound like "born again before faith"? They are "enlightened savingly" and are drawn to Jesus Christ, but are WITHOUT FAITH? A "regeneration" which is completed BEFORE faith in Jesus Christ is experienced?
In other words, A REGENERATED UNBELIEVER! A "BORN AGAIN" UNBELIEVER . . . like the Pedo-regenerationists, Shedd, Berkhof, and Sproul, whose babies are "regenerated" before they are even capable of understanding and believing?
On SAVING FAITH, in Article 14, the "work of the Spirit" in His use of the WORD is such that "the elect are enabled to BELIEVE TO THE SAVING OF THEIR SOULS," and this is "ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the WORD."
Does that sound like they were "born again before faith"?
-- Bob L. Ross
THE FIRST LONDON CONFESSION
VERSUS GENE BRIDGES
Gene Bridges said . . .
The First London Confession is also quite clear:
Indeed it is, and it does not teach "regeneration precedes faith," nor that the sinner is "born again before faith."
I am going to use the materials you quoted on your website to demonstrate the folly of this notion that one is "born again before faith."
>>
All mankind being thus fallen, and become altogether DEAD IN SINS and trespasses, . . . Faith is the gift of God wrought in the hearts of the elect by the Spirit of God, whereby they come to SEE, KNOW, and BELIEVE, . . . and thereupon are enabled to cast the weight of their souls upon this truth THUS BELIEVED. Those that have this precious FAITH WROUGHT IN THE BY THE SPIRIT can never finally nor totally fall away; . . . .That FAITH is ordinarily BEGOT BY THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL, OR WORD OF CHRIST . . . without respect to any POWER OR CAPACITY in the creature, but it is WHOLLY PASSIVE, BEING DEAD IN SINS AND TRESPASSES, DOTH BELIEVE, and is CONVERTED by no less power, than that which raised Christ from the dead.
Again, it affirms that regeneration precedes faith.
>>
The word "regeneration" does not even occur in the Confession, and neither does "precedes faith."
The Confession teaches that DEAD sinners are brought to BELIEVE, and are CONVERTED. There is no one "born again before faith" that the foregoing statement.
There is no "regenerated unbeliever" that that statement.
Gene RIGHTLY SAYS, "This, Charles; this, Mr. Ross, is what the Particular Baptists believed. This is not the Hardshell doctrine. . . ."
Gene is correct -- it is what they believed and it is not Hardshell doctrine. It rather teaches that one is not "converted" until FAITH has been "wrought in the hearts of the elect by the Spirit of God," which is "ordinarily begotten by the preaching of the Gospel, or Word of God," and the "passive" and "dead" sinner "DOTH BELIEVE and is converted by no less power than that which raised Christ from the dead."
For once Gene was right, but he was not right in thinking that this Confession teaches "regeneration before faith," or that one is "born again before faith."
Again, Gene is right when he says,"There is *no* affirmation of Hardshell doctrine in this at all," for the Hardshells share the view that "regeneration precedes faith," and it creates a FAITHLESS, LOVELESS BORN AGAIN monstrosity, and that it takes place by a "direct operation" of the Spirit WITHOUT the use of the Word as the means of creating faith whereby the elect sinner "DOTH BELIEVE" and is "CONVERTED." -- Bob L. Ross
DID SPURGEON BELIEVE "BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH"?
Gene Bridges said . . .
Gene quotes from Spurgeon and tries to enlist CHS in the ranks of those who believe that one is "born again before faith" -- a heresy which Spurgeon denounced with every ounce of his energies!
Let me examine the quote, piece by piece, to see if there is a grain of that heresy in Spurgeon's comment:
>>Coming to Christ is the very first effect of regeneration.<<
BOB:
Did Spurgeon mean by this that "regeneration" had taken place before "coming to Christ," and there was no faith created by the Word and Spirit involved in the "coming"? Of course not! That is Gene's vain delusion! If regeneration is "effected" by the Word and Spirit, what is the "effect" but "coming to Christ"? Regeneration never has the "effect" of a "born again before faith" montrosity!
Spurgeon: >>No sooner is the soul quickened<<
BOB:
Did Spurgeon here say, "No sooner is the soul regenerated or born again"?
Of course not! That is Gene's delusion! The Word quickens in many ways BEFORE faith is experienced. Did you ever hear of "conviction" by the Word, Gene?
Spurgeon: >>No sooner is the soul quickened than it at once discovers its lost estate, is horrified thereat, looks out for a refuge,<<
BOB:
Did Spurgeon say this was "regeneration" or that the sinner had already been "born again"? Of course not! That is Gene's delusion! Spurgeon is simply referring to the preliminary working of the Spirit by the Word in the lost, dead sinner -- similar to the movement among Ezekiel's dry bones BEFORE they came to life.
Spurgeon: >> and believing Christ to be a suitable one, flies to him and reposes in him.<<
BOB:
Did Spurgeon believe that the sinner is NOW born again! OF COURSE! For he has been given faith by the Holy Spirit's using the Word of God to bring him to BELIEVING IN CHRIST!
You see, Gene, Spurgeon did not have a "BORN AGAIN UNBELIEVER"!
Spurgeon: >>Where there is not this coming to Christ, it is certain that there is AS YET NO QUICKENING; where there is no quickening, the soul is dead in trespasse and sins, and being dead it cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.<<
BOB:
Therefore, Gene, Spurgeon's "born again" sinner is the one who has experienced the "COMING TO CHRIST," for with Spurgeon, if the sinner has not YET come to Christ, he has NOT YET born again.
With Spurgeon, when the sinner came to Christ by the Spirit's use of the Word in creating faith, THEN he was born again at the point of that God-given faith, NOT BEFORE.
Spurgeon did not have a sinner "born again before faith."
In the following excerpt from Spurgeon, you will not find one "born again before faith." You will find that the Spirit's work of regeneration is simultaneous with the act of man in believing. Hence, the creation of faith is regeneration, for faith would not exist without the Lord's producing it by His Word and Spirit as the "means."
Open Heart for A Great Saviour, C. H. SPURGEON, #669 Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 12, 1866:
>>
It is perfectly true that the work of salvation lies first and mainly in Jesus receiving sinners to Himself to pardon, to cleanse, to sanctify, to preserve, to make perfect.
But, at the same time the sinner also receives Christ. There is an act on the sinner’s part by which, being constrained by Divine Grace, he opens his heart to the admission of Jesus Christ and Jesus enters in and dwells in the heart, and reigns and rules there. To a gracious readiness of heart to entertain the Friend who knocks at the door, we are brought by God the Holy Spirit, and then He sups with us and we with Him. . . .
The act of TRUSTING Jesus Christ is the act which brings a soul into a state of Grace and is the mark and evidence of our being bought with the blood of the Lord Jesus. Do you trust Him, dear Hearers? Then, if so, you receive Him. ....
THE GREAT WORK, WHICH IS NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN THIS ACT OF RECEIVING CHRIST.
Every man who trusts the Lord Jesus has been born again. The question was once argued in an assembly of Divines as to whether a person first had faith or regeneration, and it was suggested that it was a question which must forever be unanswerable. The process, if such it is, must be simultaneous—no sooner does the Divine life come into the soul than it believes on Christ. You might as well ask whether in the human body there is first the circulation of the blood or the heaving of the lungs—both are essential ingredients in life, and must come at the same time.
If I believe in Jesus Christ I need not ask any question as to whether I am regenerated, for no unregenerate person ever could believe in the Lord Jesus Christ! And if regenerated I must BELIEVE in Jesus, for he who does not do so is clearly dead in sin.
See, then, the FOLLY of persons talking about being regenerated who have no faith! It cannot be! It is IMPOSSIBLE! We can have no knowledge of such a thing as regeneration which is not accompanied with some degree of mental motion and consciousness.
Regeneration is not a thing which takes place upon matter—it is a thing of spirit. The birth of the spirit must be the subject of consciousness, and though a man may not be able to say that at such and such a moment he was regenerated, yet the act of faith is a consciousness of regeneration.
The moment I believe in Jesus Christ my faith is an index to me of a work that has gone on within. And the secret work within, and the open act of faith which God has joined together let no man put asunder.
Those who believe not are unregenerate, though they may have been sprinkled by the best priest who ever had Episcopal hands laid on his head!
If a man believes NOT he is unregenerate, whether baptized or not. But if he believes, he is regenerate, though he may never have been baptized at all. Baptism may outwardly express regeneration after it has been received, and then the symbol becomes valuable—but WITHOUT FAITH THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION, even though Baptism is administered a thousand times!. . . . .
Now faith is the “tell-tale” of the human soul! Where there is faith there is new life. Where there is NO FAITH there is no life. . . . . .
SPURGEON'S IMMACULATE SYLLOGISM
On this blogsite, we have seen Dr. B. H. Carroll's Impeccable Syllogism in another post on this blogsite.
Now, here is C. H. Spurgeon's Immaculate Syllogism, which is based on 1 John 5:4. This is on page 142 of Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 17, 1971, Sermon #979, "Faith and Regeneration."
1. "Whatsoever is BORN OF GOD overcometh the world."
2. But FAITH overcomes the world.
3. Therefore, the man who has FAITH is REGENERATE.
There is no way, Gene, to squeeze a "born again before faith" situation into that syllogism!
FAITH is that which is BORN OF GOD, therefore the REGENERATED man is the man who has FAITH -- and NO OTHER!
That rules out the faithless infants of "regenerated" pedobaptists, and it rules out the imaginary "pre-faith regenerates" of James White's "White Lightnin' Distillery Co. Inc. Phoenix, Arizona."
Dear Chuck
G'day cobber.
You know, that ol' codger, Bob Ross, was doing a bit of chyacking at Glenn Conjurske. Yeh, havin' a bit of a go at him, he was. Says he was a bit touched. Few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, he reckons, if you know what I mean. Fair dinkum, a bloke can't even excuse himself from ol' John Calvin's ranks without copping it sweet from some ol' Calvinistic digger doin' his lolly. Fair suck o' the sav, Bob! We haven't wished that your emus would kick your dunny door down on ya or nothin', so why give the big A to Bro. Glenn?
Anyways, I'd say we could all be kept on the hop doin' the Aussie salute, mate, with all them Calvinistic flies what's buzzin' 'round these days. If the mozzies don't getcha, some other beggars will! Reminds me of the time I was lookin' for agates along Walkabout Creek, out back o' Bourke. Stone the crows, talk about flies! You shoulda' seen 'em. Anybody'd think I'd forgot me Mum that mornin' or somethin'.
Anyways, chuffed to have a bit of a chinwag with you, Chuck. The blogsite's a bit of a corker. Just wish some of those bludgers from, whatzit called, the Flounders or somethin', would come out for a bit of a corroboree with youse blokes. What, they a bit crook, or somethin'? You might have to bung on a free barbie and a few coldies for 'em, mate. Yeah, that might flush some of 'em outta hiding quicker than a new bit o' juicy gossip on the bush telegraph, ey?
Anyhow, prob'ly given you enuff of an ear bashing for now, ey? You must be pretty whacked. Must have a bonzer boss cocky. You on Flexitime or somethin'?
Drop in some time for a cuppa if you're ever down this way, old son. We might scare the chooks together. :-)
Anyway, better put Bluey out. The fleas are gettin' restless.
She'll be apples, Chuck.
Hooroo
Chuckette, an ol' sheila Downunder
Scott said...
Bob,
You quoted David Jones " Enabled to believe TO THE SAVING OF OUR SOULS". First( Enabled" NewBirth/Regeneration) Second( To believe). Acts 16:14 supports clearly Regeneration precedes Saving Faith!
BOB:
You said it, Scott; David Jones did not, neither does the Bible.
I think I told you that you held to Hardshell doctrine, and you just stated it. ANY semblance of the Spirit's work in the sinner before faith is "regeneration" according to the Hardshells, and that seems to be what you believe.
If the Spirit does anything in a sinner before faith, that, you think, is "born again before faith." Or, is there ANY THING the Spirit does in a sinner before faith that is NOT the New Birth, according to you?
Why don't you find a Hardshell church in Georgia and hitch your wagon to it? -- Bob
THIS ONE FOR YOU, CHARLES!
Chuckette said...
Dear Chuck
G'day cobber.
You know, that ol' codger, Bob Ross, was doing a bit of chyacking at Glenn Conjurske. Yeh, havin' a bit of a go at him, he was. Says he was a bit touched. Few kangaroos loose in the top paddock, he reckons, if you know what I mean. Fair dinkum, a bloke can't even excuse himself from ol' John Calvin's ranks without copping it sweet from some ol' Calvinistic digger doin' his lolly. Fair suck o' the sav, Bob! We haven't wished that your emus would kick your dunny door down on ya or nothin', so why give the big A to Bro. Glenn?
Charles, I have neither the gift of tongues nor the gift of interpretation of tongues. I'm going to defer to you on this Aussie lassie. I can't make heads or tails of her lingo. -- Bob
EXCERPTS FROM C. H. SPURGEON ON THE MATTER OF
SINNERS BELIEVING AND BEING BORN AGAIN
Charles, inasmuch as Gene Bridges has perverted Spurgeon by his misinterpretations of Spurgeon's remarks, here are a few selections which will reveal Spurgeon's mind on the matter of the New Birth and the necessity of Faith before one is born again. References are given, so all sources may be consulted for context. There are literally thousands of such statements which could be quoted.
C. H. SPURGEON:
No faith, no life
"Where there is faith, there is new life; where there is no faith there is no life." (Open Heart for the Great Saviour, #669, page 22).
**********
On the Dry Bones and Dead Sinners
To tell dry bones to live, is a very unreasonable sort of thing when tried by rules of logic; and for me to tell you, a dead sinner, to believe in Christ, may seem perfectly unjustifiable by the same rule. But I do not need to justify it. If I find it in God’s Word, that is quite enough for me; and if the preacher does not feel any difficulty in the matter, why should you? . . . Leave the difficulties; there will be time enough to settle them when we get to heaven; meanwhile, if life comes through Jesus Christ, let us have it, and have done with nursing our doubts" (#2246, page 119).
**********
Faith and Quickening
"It is depending upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone which is the true vital act by which the soul is quickened into spiritual life." (Eyes Opened, #681, page 163). [Of course, Spurgeon believed this was the creative work of the Holy Spirit using the Word to create this act of faith].
**********
Faith's has Transforming Power
"If thou believest in Jesus Christ and him crucified, in the moment that thou believest, this great change of nature is effected in thee; for faith has in itself a singularly transforming power" (Despised Light Withdrawn, #2413, page 235). [Of course, Spurgeon believed this faith was created by the Holy Spirit's using the Word].
**********
Holy Spirit Uses the TRUTH for Quickening
"Threre is nothing in all our eloquence unless we believe in the Holy Spirit making use of the TRUTH which we preach for the quickening of the souls of men. . . . The Spirit of God, that is, the breath of God, goes with the Word of God, and with that alone" (Come from the Four Winds, O Breath! #2246, page 117).
**********
Hear and Live
You are bidden, in the first precept, to hearken, and incline your ear, and the promise given is this: “Your soul shall live.” What! Live through hearing? Yes, live as the result of hearing; for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” . . . Some sit down, and say, “I cannot believe.” Of course you cannot believe until you know what you have to believe. But while you are hearing what it is, the inspired Word acts upon you with a self-evidencing power, and your conscience, and mind, and heart are affected thereby. The Holy Spirit quickens through the Word, and fulfils the promise, “Hear, and your soul shall live.”
There is such a power about the Word of God, that when it comes into contact with the heart, which is seeking eternal life it breathes eternal life into it. I will try to sketch the manner of its operation. The man is an earnest hearer, and he says to himself, “How I wish I could meet with the salvation of God!” While listening he feels a tenderness stealing over him; perhaps a tear trickles down his cheek. He gets absorbed in the truth to which he listens, and becomes serious, anxious, and impressible. The Word of God is like a fire which melts. Attended by the Holy Spirit, the influence of the Word upon the soul acts for the removing of the stony heart and the creation of a heart of flesh. . . .
I remember when I sought the Lord, I said to myself,” If the Lord is to be found by hearing, I will always be hearing.” Three times on the Sabbath
you might have found me, as a lad, in some place of worship or other; and I never lost a word. I gave earnest heed to all that was spoken. As Gideon’s fleece drank in the dew, so did I receive the Word. The divine life came to me at last, though not at the first. So will it be with you, for there is the promise-the promise of God, that cannot lie -- ”Hear, and your soul shall live.” (God's Own Gospel Call, #2092, pages 353, 354).
**********
Rise and Walk"
He said to this man, “Rise.” He could not rise.
“Take up thy bed.” he could not take up his bed; he had been thirty-eight years unable to get off his bed.
“Take up thy bed, and walk.” Walk? he could not walk.
I have heard some objectors say, “That preacher says to people, ‘Believe.’ They cannot believe. he bids them ‘Repent.’ They cannot repent.”
Ah! well, our Lord is our example; and he said to this man, who could not rise, and could not take up his bed, and could not walk, “Rise, take up thy bed and walk.” This was his way of exercising his divine power; and that is the way in which Christ saves men to-day.
He gives us faith enough to say, “Ye dry bones, hear the Word of the Lord!” They cannot hear. “Thus saith the Lord, Ye dry bones live!” They cannot live; but they do hear, and they do live; and while we are acting by faith, delivering a command which looks, upon the surface of it, to be absurd and unreasonable, the work of Christ is done by that command.
Did he not say of old in the darkness, “Let there be light”? To what spake the Lord that word of power? To darkness, and to nothingness. “And there was light.”
Now, he speaks to the sinner, and he says, “Believe and live.” He believes, and he lives.
God wants those of his messengers, who have faith to give his command, to let the sinner know that he has not the strength to obey, that he is morally lost and ruined, and yet to say, in the name of the eternal God, “Thus saith the Lord, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.” Believe, repent, be converted, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
This is the way in which Christ’s power goes forth to the sons of men. he said to the man with the withered hand, “Stretch forth thine hand,” and he did so; and he says to the dead, “Come forth,” and they do come forth. his commandings are attended with enablings; and where his commands are faithfully preached, his power goes with them, and men are saved.
I close with observation. In obedience, power was given. The man that did not stop and wrangle with Christ, and say, “Rise? What dost thou mean? Thou lookest like a friend; but dost thou come here to make a sport of me? Rise? Thirty and eight years have I been lying here, and thou sayest, ‘Rise.’ Dost thou think that there has ever been a minute in those eight and thirty years in which I would not have gladly risen if I could have done so, and yet thou sayest, ‘Rise,’ and thou sayest ‘Take up thy bed. Shoulder the rug on which thou liest.’ How can I do so? It is thirty and eight years since I could lift a pound weight, and thou bidst me shoulder this mat on which I lie. Dost thou make me a theme of jest? And walk? Thou sayest, ‘Walk.’ Walk? Hear me, sick ones around me, he tells me to walk! I can scarcely lift even a finger, yet he bids me walk!”
Thus he might have argued the matter out, and it would have been a very logical piece of argument, and the Savior would have stood convicted of having spoken empty words. Instead of speaking thus, no sooner did Christ say to him, “Rise,” than he willed to rise; and as he willed to rise, he moved to rise and rise he did, to his own astonishment. He rose, and stooping down, rolled up his mattress, all the while filled with wonder, every part of his body singing as he rolled it up and put it on his shoulder with alacrity. To his surprise, he found that the joints of his feet and legs could move, and he walked right away with his mattress on his shoulder; and the miracle was complete.
Stop, man, stop! Come here! Now, had you the strength to do this of yourself?
“No, not I. I lay here eight and thirty years; I had no strength till that word ‘Rise,’ came to me.”
“But did you do it?”
“Oh! yes, you see that I did it. I rose; I folded up the mattress; and I walked away.”
“But you were under some kind o compulsion, that made you move your legs and your hands were you not?”
“Oh! no; I did it freely, cheerfully, gladly. Compel me to do it? My dear sir, I clap my hands for joy to think that I could do it. I do not want to go back to that old mat, and lie there again; not I.”
“Then what did you do?”
“Well, I scarcely know what I did. I believed him, and I did what he told me; and a strange, mysterious power came over me; that is the whole story.”
“Now explain it; tell these people all about it.”
“Oh! no,” says the man, “I know that it is so; but I cannot explain it. one thing I know, whereas I was a cripple, now I can walk; whereas I was impotent, now I can carry my bed; whereas I was lying there, now I can stand upright.”
I cannot explain salvation to you to-night, or how it takes place; but I remember when I sat in the pew as despairing a sinner as ever lived. I heard the preacher say, “Look unto Christ, and live.” He seemed to say to me, “Look! Look! Look! Look!” and I did look, and I lived. That moment the burden of my sin was gone; I was crippled with unbelief no longer; I went home a sinner saved by grace, to live to praise the Lord; and —
“E’er since by faith I saw the stream
His flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme,
And shall be till I die.”
I am impressed that I am going to have ever so many to-night who will just obey the gospel command, “Believe and live. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”
Oh, do it! Do it now; and unto God be glory, and to thyself be peace and happiness for ever! Amen and Amen. (Impotence and Omnipotence, #2269, pages 392, 393)
Dear Chuck
I see the ol' fella's come a gutser with me dialect. Well, we best try to help 'im out a bit, ay?
He's a bit stroppy 'bout all these, what are they, pre-faith generators? Wretched thingummys. Why don't he just take 'em back to Gillette or some mob like that? That'd stop the grizzling, wouldn't it?
BTW, thought I'd lob in to have a Captain Cook at Flounders blogsite, but the thing's cactus. You know why they gone down the gurgler? Didn't pay their 'lectricity bill or somethin'? Or they went mad and you shot 'em?
Hey, who's that Scott fella that keeps on showing up like a bad penny? His arguments a bit bodgy, ey? Bit of a broken packet of biscuits, you reckon?
An' according to how ol' Bob tells it, seems like this Gene Bridges dag's yanking our chain when it comes to CHS, ay? Yeah, have a go, yer mug!
Anyhow, having to read the posts of those Hardshell nuts would be 'bout as much fun as running into a brown-eyed mullet while you're taking a dip at Bondi. Nah, she'll be right, thanks!
Those ol' blowies still bothering you, mate? Well, if you've tried everything else, you might have to fling a mozzie net over the wadjamacallit at night. As ol' "Father" Pete used to say: It's worth a thought.
You didn't have to chuck a sickie, did you, for staying up so late last night? With the hours you blokes put in to this, youse must survive on Maccas and Pommy showers, ay?
Well, dunno if this has got our ol' mate Bob within cooee of better interpretin' these "tongues" o' mine? Please say g'day to the old Ba**** for me. Hey Chuck, don't you worry your depilated head 'bout me calling 'im that. It's a term of endearment out here, you know.
Anyways, give 'em a gobful, Chuck. I'd better get goin' else you'll be talking on the Porcelain telephone. Hey BTW, how do you make a quid?
See ya round like a rissole
Chuckette
I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.
(http://www.groucho-marx.com/)
Scott, Hello!
You said, " I do not believe that an Elect person that has been regenerated walks around for some time before they are converted
What about John the Baptist?
Scott, you never answered my question about Tom Nettles. Did you attend SBTS and were you in his class?
Charles
SPURGEON ENDORSED ABRAHAM BOOTH'S
VIEW ON REGENERATION AT FAITH
Brother Charles, in addition to direct quotations from Spurgeon, it is significant as an aid to understand his views to observe what other writers were endorsed by Spurgeon.
On the subject the New Birth, Spurgeon specifically endorsed the work of Abraham Booth (1734-1806), one of the Baptist champions of the past who was well-known for his great book, The Reign of Grace, which is still in print and also online.
Booth also wrote a great work entitled, Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners, in which he counteracts the view of "pre-faith regeneration," or "born again before faith."
C. H. Spurgeon said of Booth and his book:
"I have read with some degree of attention a book to which I owe much for this present discourse—a book, by Abraham Booth, called Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners. I have never heard any one cast a suspicion upon Abraham Booth's soundness; on the contrary, he has been generally considered as one of the most orthodox of the divines of the last generation.
If you want MY VIEWS IN FULL in full, read his book"
("The Warrant of Faith," page 539, Sermon #531, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 9, year 1863, online).
My entire article on Booth on Regeneration is available at http://writingsofbobross.tripod.com/0004.htm
Here are excerpts from Booth's book, which, to my knowledge, is now out of print.
Beginning on page 119 of the 1813 London edition, he quotes in full many Scriptures, for which I will simply give the references here:
>>
[Theory:] Regeneration must precede faith.
This, though assumed as a certain fact, may be justly doubted: for the page of inspiration does not warrant our supposing that any one is born of God, before he believe in Jesus Christ; or, that regeneration is effected by the Holy Spirit, without the word of grace.
For we are taught, by the sacred writers, to consider the word of truth, with regard to adults, as the MEANS of regeneration, and of many other happy effects. They teach, for instance,
That it is the instrument of enlightening the mind, of awakening the conscience, and of softening the heart. -- Psalm 119:130; Ephesians 6:17; Jeremiah 23:29; 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5; Revelation 1:16, 2:12, 16; 19:15, 21.
That it is the instrument, or seed, of regeneration. --John 5:25; John 6:63;1 Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 Corinthians 1:18; 2:4.
That they only, who believe in Christ, are the children of God. -- John 1:12; Galatians 3:26; 1 John 5:1.
That it is the means, in the hand of the Spirit of Conversion, of Sanctification, and of Salvation. -- Psalm 19:7; 2 Thesssalonians 2:14; Matthew 13:23; John 15:3; John 17:17; John 17:19. Romans 6:17; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 1:5, 6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:22; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 1:18; James 1:17.
>>
Booth says page 122:
>>
Such is the language of inspiration, relative to the high importance of revealed truth, in the great plan of salvation by Jesus Christ! Hence, it appears, that few things are more evidently contained, or more strongly asserted, in sacred scripture, than the INSTRUMENTALITY OF DIVINE TRUTH IN RENEWING THE HEARTS OF SINNERS.
For it is there described as the honoured means, as the seed of God (1 Peter 1:23-25), BY WHICH THE HOLY SPIRIT EFFECTS REGENERATION, the sanctification, and the consolation, of those that are saved.
But it is impossible for us to conceive of the mind being enlightened, of the conscience being relieved, of the will being regulated, and of the affections being purified by the word of truth, any further than it is believed. It may therefore be concluded, that regeneration is not, in order of time, prior to faith in Christ, and justification by him.
(Regarding the idea "that regeneration must be prior to faith, and to justification," Abraham Booth applies an illustration and says:) There is no such thing as priority, or posteriority, respecting them, either as to the order of time, or the order of nature. THEY ARE INSEPARABLE, NOR CAN ONE EXIST WITHOUT THE OTHER.
Thus it is, I conceive, with regard to regeneration, faith in Christ, and justification before God.
For, to consider any man as born of God, but not as a child of God; as a child of God, but not as believing in Jesus Christ; as believing in Jesus Christ, but not as justified; or as justified, but not as an heir of immortal felicity; is, either to the last degree absurd, or manifestly contrary to the apostolic doctrine.
Consequently, as they are the ungodly whom the Spirit regenerates by the truth, so persons of that character are warranted to believe in Jesus.
>>
Mr. Booth then gives the quotes from Stephen Charnock, to whom we have often referred, contained in Charnock's A Discourse of the Word, the Instrument of Regeneration (online).
He follows the Charnock quotatation with the following from Dr. John Owen:
>>
This [regeneration] is wrought by the word. We are born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God.
Wherein, not only the thing itself, of our regeneration by the word, but the manner of it also, is declared. It is by the collation of a new spiritual life upon us, whereof the word is the seed. As every life proceeds from some seed, that hath in itself virtually the whole life to be deduced from it, by natural ways and means; so the word in the hearts of men is turned into a vital principle, that, cherished by suitable means, puts forth vital acts and operations.
BY THIS MEANS WE ARE BORN OF GOD, and quickened, who, by nature, are children of wrath; dead in trespasses and sins. So Paul tells the Corinthians, that he had begotten them, in Jesus Christ, by the gospel. It is the INSTRUMENT OF GOD for this end; and mighty and powerful, through God, it is for the accomplishment of it. (Owen on Hebrews 2:2, 3, 4, Vol. I, page 178).
>>
Abraham Booth goes on in his book to consider some of the objections and arguments of the hyper-Calvinists of his day who taught "pre-faith regeneration."
It is noteworthy that some of the same thought is expressed today by various hypers, Hardshells, and hybrid Calvinists.
This theory became the very core of HARDSHELLISM, or the PRIMITIVE BAPTIST CHURCH, from 1832 onward.
I looked in the index of James White's book, The Potter's Freedom, and noticed he has no reference to great passages used by Mr. Booth which teach the necessity of the means of the Gospel or Word in regeneration.
No references by James is made to John 6:63; 1 Corinthians 2:4, 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; 1 Peter 1:23.
The absence of such passages in White's books is consistent with his "born again before faith" theory, and might lead one to suspect that James prefers to keep those passages "out of the picture" on the subject of regeneration. -- Bob L. Ross
HARDSHELL OR NOT?
Scott said...
Bob, Your not going to paint me as a Hardshell ! . . .
(Bob notice that Regeneration is seperate from Saves sinners they are listed as different doctrines!
BOB to SCOTT:
I do not have to "paint" you, Scott, for you have painted your own self-portrait.
That is as clearly HARDSHELL doctrine which you just spouted as was ever uttered by a Gilbert Beebe or one of the Cayces, well known Hardshell preachers who split from the Baptists on this doctrine in the 1800s.
They have (1)"regeneration" in a cateogry which does NOT include faith in Christ, and they have (2) "salvation" in a category they called "Time Salvation."
You can just send your comment to the Primitive Baptist Library in Carthage, Illinois (online) and ask Brother Webb if what you teach in that statement is not Primitive Baptist doctrine.-- that "regeneration" is one thing, and "salvation" is another.
Why do you think the Primitive Baptists would have James White to preach for them if they did not understand that James held to their view on regeneration?
-- Bob L. Ross
HANGING UP ON SCOTT
Scott said...
Bob,
This is for the record:
I attempted to call you to discuss your comments on this blogsite in which you accuse me of holding to a Hardshell view of Regeneration( 10:30am EST). As I intoduced myself you interrupted me by saying " Have I changed my position" and my response was no then you said I will not waste my time with you and you hung up on me. This is the second time you have hung up on me on the telephone.
Yes, I told you that I was BUSY and did not have time to talk to you, unless you had "changed you mind."
You said you had not changed your mind, so I said, "I am busy, and do not have time to talk to you. May God Bless you," and hung up. And I would do the same thing AGAIN. No apologies, either.
I am running a book store business here, helping customers, paying bills, making orders, stamping Bibles, answering the phone, etc., and only write email and blog in my spare time. Plus I have three little pals, my dogs -- Baby, Goldie, and Toady -- who live in the store, and I like to play with them see after their needs when necessary. They, too, are more important to me than arguing on the phone over the idea of "born again before faith." If you were "born again before faith," then just be happy you were an "exception" to how God ordinarly saves! I didn't get saved that way, so I am happy that the Gospel was the power of God unto my salvation (Romans 1:16), and I was begotten by it (1 Cor. 4:15).
I told Charles one reason I don't have a blog is for the above reasons . . . I could not do it justice. At best, I can only make comments on Charles' blog. I don't even have time to surf the other blogs, and seldom read any of them.
I do not have enough spare time to include very many of the kind of conversations which I had with you when you phoned earlier in the year, when you kept jumping from one thing to another, and prolonged the argumentation unnecessarily.
I will not do that again, and will hang up again.
Furthermore, I do not "debate" by phone. If you want to debate, which you once said you did, send me you propositions and arrange for the debate.
I get calls occasionally from some who are disgruntled with me for writing about their views -- Campbellites, Preterists, Hypers, Arminians, Pentecostals, King James Onlys, and others who want to engage me in arguments on the phone. I don't do it.
I tell them if they want to debate, let me know, and I consider it. Otherwise, I have others things to do beside argue with them by phone. They, too, often accuse me of misrepresenting them. Usually this simply means that they don't like the way I have presented their views. -- Bob Ross
Scott, Hello!
You said, ( Please send me your phone number). Tell us more about who you are and what you do and where you are from.
Scott, how many times have you called Bob Ross to argue with him? I'll pass, thank you anyway.
Can't wait to see your new web site! What fun!
Mark said, would love to know more about you. where do you live, are you a pastor; if so, which church? are you s.b.c., independent baptist? have you been to college, seminary? are you married, have children? none of this information is under the link entitled "view my COMPLETE profile." just curious...
Mark, Hello!
I looked at your COMPLETE profile and had the same questions! I also need a DNA sample from you and the names of all schools you attended with the full address of all your teachers including phone numbers.
Not! I was surprised, though, to learn your astrological Sign was Pisces and your Zodiac Year was Sheep. I would never have guessed!
Regards,
Charles
Scott, Hello!
You said, "I have had Dr. Nettles for conferences at my church. He is the best Baptist Historian that we have today and a solid theologian"
Tell me about the book, Teaching Truth, Training Hearts that you quoted from.
Charles
TOM NETTLES
scott said . . .
I have had Dr. Nettles for conferences at my church. He is the best Baptist Historian that we have today and a solid theologian. We need more men like him today in our seminaries and churches. He is such a Christian gentleman!
BOB'S COMMENT:
I first met Tom Nettles when he taught in Memphis at Mid-America, when I was there in abou 1984 to present a program on Spurgeon and present the school with a free set of Spurgeon's sermons for the Library.
I later met Tom in Libery, Missouri at one of the "Spurgeon Pastors Conferences" which we held at William Jewell College.
Tom has written to me quite a number of times over the past few years, and he is a fine gentleman. I know many "gentlemen" with whom I differ -- Campbellites, Harshells, Pentecostals, Preterists, etc.
But Tom comes down on the side of "born again before faith," if I read his comments accurately. In this, I differ with him very seriously.
I believe Tom has read a lot of history, but he tends to construe what he reads in favor of "born again before faith." Have you ever seen him write about the history of the "Hardshells" of the 1800s? What does he say about their theory on "regeneration"?
I have written many articles on Hardshell history, and I can tell you that in essence, if I understand him, Tom favors their view on "regeneration" -- that it occurs BEFORE faith in Christ.
Although Tom will tell you that he believes in "means," he does not believe that the "means" produce faith in the dead sinner; rather, he teaches that the sinner is FIRST "born again" BEFORE the "means" have any effect upon him. That is Hardshell doctrine in essence.
Furthermore, how many sermons have you ever heard Tom preach TO THE LOST? Does he EVER do any EVANGELISM whatsoever? Does Tom also claim to have been "born again" before he believed in Jesus Christ as Saviour? Did he make a profession of faith during an invitation? When did he FIRST start believing that he was "born again before faith," if he believes that? How did he imbibe that doctrine? Did you get your views from Tom? If not, where did you get them? You don't read "born again before faith" in the Bible, so from what source did you get that view?-- Bob
Anonymous said...
SPURGEON ENDORSED ABRAHAM BOOTH'S
VIEW ON REGENERATION AT FAITH
Charles, I don't know how that was attributed to "Anonymous"! Where did I make the mistake? I do note, however, that my name is at the bottom. -- Bob Ross
Bob Ross said, I do not have to "paint" you, Scott, for you have painted your own self-portrait.
That is as clearly HARDSHELL doctrine
Scott is Hardshell, hybrid, hyper, and whatever else you want to call it. What he is not is a confessional Calvinist or in agreement with the Baptist Faith & Message.
He may think he is but like James White, he cannot overcome the law of noncontradiction!
Charles
Scott, Hello!
You said, I have had Dr. Nettles for conferences at my church. He is the best Baptist Historian that we have today and a solid theologian.
Did Dr. Nettles forget to tell you that John Calvin himself taught that faith occured before regeneration? Maybe he didn't want you to know? Instead of harrassing Bob, why don't you call Dr. Nettles and find out why he forgot to tell you Calvin's view?
Scott, how can you call yourself a Calvinist when you disagree with John Calvin himself on the ordo salutis?
Charles
Bob wrote, Charles, I don't know how that was attributed to "Anonymous"! Where did I make the mistake? I do note, however, that my name is at the bottom. -- Bob Ross
I don't know. Anyway, no harm no foul.
Charles
Scott, hello!
How can you call yourself a Calvinist when you disagree with John Calvin himself on the ordo salutis? Or did Dr. Nettles forget to tell you that when he came to your church?
Charles
GO JOIN YOUR BRETHREN AT THE HARDSHELL CHURCH, SCOTT!
Scott said...
Charles and Bob,
What's wrong guys . . .
Since Scott dropped the name of A. W. Pink, here is some quotes which should give Scott a case of "Pink-Eye"!
A. W. PINK REVISITED ABOUT THE NECESSARY USE
OF "MEANS" IN THE NEW BIRTH]
I find it rather amusing that Hardshells, hyper-Calvinists, hybrid-Calvinists, and others who teach that men are "born again" before they believe the Gospel, often will snatch snippets from Pink and others, as if to get aid and comfort for their erroneous teachings on what they call "regeneration."
It is often the case that one can rake thru the voluminous materials of men such as Pink, John Gill, and C. H. Spurgeon and find a few very carefully selected comments, if isolated from the whole of what they taught, might appear to the mind-set of a "Hardshell" type that they render meager support to the peculiar idea for which the person contends.
However, this is not a very responsible approach, nor will it be of any persuasive significance to those who are broadly acquainted the writings of these men.
How often have I, in public debates with Campbellites, even had to "rescue" Baptist writers who are perverted, distorted, and misappropriated by Campbellite debaters in "support" of some peculiar Campbellite idea! So it is with those of the "born again before faith" persuasion.
For the benefit of anyone who has been victimized by very carefully seclected materials from Arthur W. Pink and had your mind permeated with a false view of salvation whereby one is supposed to be "born again before faith," here is information from Pink which should serve to dispel that mistake:
REPLY TO A HARDSHELL BAPTIST ON
THE USE OF MEANS IN THE NEW BIRTH
I had an email from a Primitive Baptist, or Hardshell preacher,-- such as James White has preached for -- a while back and he gave a few isolated quotes from the likes of Boyce, Spurgeon, Pink, and Owen, alleging that they were in "agreement" with the Hardshells on the internal, pre-faith work of the Holy Spirit. Imagine the Hardshells trying to get aid and comfort from missionary Baptists!
Here is my reply to this preacher:
>>
Dear Brother:
I think you know very well that all the men you quoted believed in the Holy Spirit's working in conjunction with the necessary use of "MEANS," which Hardshells deny. I challenge you to show that any one of them ever taught that the new birth ever took place, or can take place, apart from the Holy Spirit's use of means and the creation of faith by those means.
None of the men mentioned denied, nor do we deny, that there is a pre-faith work of the Holy Spirit in the lost person, variously described in selected terms, but no one disassociates this from the use of means or the necessary role of faith.
And even though some writers may be found who may broadly apply the term "regeneration" to include or cover this preliminary pre-faith work of the Spirit, they do not mean that this constitutes the new birth at that point. By the term "regeneration" it is perfectly obvious that they do not mean that this pre-faith work is the new birth, but it is only a partial or preparatory work. Furthermore, they insist that it involves the conjunctive use of means.
BOYCE, for example, on pages 373-375, makes it clear that in the terms he uses "The Scriptures connect the two under the ONE IDEA of the new birth;" "the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration," and that the Scriptures "teach the use of the word in regeneration."
In fact, Boyce says that "the first step here is to make known to man the gospel" (page 367), which obviously reveals that Boyce places the use of means as preceding the internal work of the Holy Spirit.
PINK also insists on the necessary use of means.
Pink wrote:
"This He does by MEANS of the Gospel, by the written word and oral ministry of the Scriptures, for the Word of God is the only instrument He employs or uses (Phil. 2:16), but it only becomes such in the experience of the individual soul by the immediate operation and application of the Spirit of God" (Holy Spirit's Work in Salvation, page 13, Bible Truth Depot, 1953).
In his booklet, The New Birth, he has a section entitled, "The New Birth is effected by the Word of God applied by the Holy Spirit" (page 22). He says "the Scriptures are termed 'The Word of Life,' because they alone are capable of quickening those who are dead in trespasses and sins" (page 23). He goes on to say that "dead souls are born again, but by the Word of the living God" and quotes James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23.
"Believe and preach the Word of God, for by it, and it alone, are DEAD SOULS born again" (page 24).
In his booklet, Regeneration or the New Birth, Pink says "the only means or instrument which the Holy Spirit employs" in the new birth is the Word (page 29).
In his comments on the raising of Lazarus, which are reproduced in book form in his Commentary on John,Pink says the following on the "voice" of Christ which raised Lazarus: "And, too, it perfectly illustrated the MEANS which God employs in REGENERATION. Men are raised spiritually, pass from death unto life, by MEANS of the WRITTEN WORD, and by that alone" (page 613).
In his Studies in the Scriptures magazine, the issue of October 1952, he comments on 1 Thess. 1:5:
"It is for the preaching of the GOSPEL to be ACCOMPANIED by the supernatural operation of the SPIRIT, and the efficacious grace of God, so that souls are Divinely QUICKENED, convicted, converted, delivered from the dominion of sin and Satan. When the WORD is applied by the SPIRIT to a person, it acts like the entrance of a two-edged sword into his inner man, piercing, wounding, slaying his self-complacency and self-righteousness -- as in case of Saul of Tarsus (Romans 7:9, 10)" (page 233).
This reveals that Pink considered the GOSPEL to be the same message as Christ gave to Saul in Acts 9 "face-to-face."
In the FINAL issue of his magazine (Dec. 1953), we read about the preaching of the Gospel "to sinners as sinners:"
"The Gospel of salvation is ACCOMPANIED by the Holy Spirit with life and light to elect sinners, and made the power of God unto salvation. By IT they hear Christ's VOICE, see His glory, behold how He loved them, receive Him into their hearts, live by FAITH on the Son of God," etc. (page 266).
So Pink believed that "Christ's VOICE" is when the GOSPEL comes in the power of the Holy Spirit, similar to what Paul wrote in First Thessalonians 1:5.
[More from Pink later.]
Charles and Bob:
Thank you for the enlightenment. I am a student at Southern. Regeneration before faith is the theme song in Louisville. I hear it sung in almost every class. Thank you for getting the truth out!
I have a recording of Dr. Nettles talking in class about Bob. I would like you to hear it. He mentions James White, Joel O. and other things. Charles, I could not find your email. Where should I send it?
Forgive me for not posting my name. I hope you understand.
SBTS student
SBTS student, Hello!
Provide your email address in a comment. I will not publish it and I'll get back to you.
It would help me authenticate the recording if you had a student email address. Also a date when the recording was made.
Charles
TOM NETTLES
SBTS student said...
Charles and Bob:
Thank you for the enlightenment. I am a student at Southern. Regeneration before faith is the theme song in Louisville. I hear it sung in almost every class. Thank you for getting the truth out!
I have a recording of Dr. Nettles talking in class about Bob. I would like you to hear it . . .
BOB'S COMMENT:
Give Brother Nettles my regards!
If he would like, I will be happy to come to Louisville and face-off with him on "born again before faith," if he thinks that might be beneficial to his students. We could have a classroom discussion, or better still a discussion in the Worship Center.
He could then talk "at" me instead of "about" me.
I had occasion to take the Seminary to task in the mid 1950s over Neo-orthodoxy, and in due time a couple of the Neo professors whom I rebutted were dismissed or otherwise deleted from Seminary faculties -- one by the name of Hall from Southern, and another, who had moved over to Southeastern, by the name of Briggs.
I don't know that my writings at the time had any influence upon their departures, but at least I was not a bit unhappy when I learned that they were no longer on faculties at SBC schools.
It seems that near the start of my preaching career I was rebutting something at Southern Seminary, and now near the end of it (I am 71) I am rebutting something to do with the Seminary again!
I have had some correspondence for the past few years with Brother Nettles by email, and regret to say that we can't seem to come to eye-to-eye agreement on the matter of regeneration.
I have met both Dr. Nettles and Dr. Mohler, and have always had a very high opinion of them. It hurts deeply that it seems we are now on different "sides" of an important doctrinal issue.
-- Bob L. Ross
DID SPURGEON CONTRADICT HIMSELF?
Scott said...
OK it's time to finally show how you need to practice what you ask people to do in your blog about grabbing quotes from various men to support our belief on something. I agree that we can go back in forth all day but this one I could not resist from Spurgeon to help show you how " Off you are on Spurgeon and Baptist Confessions( Are you ready my" General Baptist Charsmatic friend"):
Spurgeon Volume 4( New Park Street pulpit) 1857-1858
The Work of the Holy Spirit pgs 108-109
BOB'S COMMENT:
Scott, you are demonstrating the very thing I have said about lifting quotations and disregarding the entire context of one's views.
Are you prepared to say Spurgeon CONTRADICTED himself, or are you going to do the proper thing and endeavor to understand him from ALL THAT HE SAYS on a subject?
Before I myself deal directly with the place you cite, let me remind you of what Spurgeon has said on faith and regeneration, which is summed up in the following sermon:
>>
The act of TRUSTING Jesus Christ is the act which brings a soul into a state of Grace and is the mark and evidence of our being bought with the blood of the Lord Jesus. . . . See, then, the FOLLY of persons talking about being regenerated who have no faith! It cannot be! It is IMPOSSIBLE! . . . WITHOUT FAITH THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION. -- Open Heart for A Great Saviour, C. H. SPURGEON, Sermon #669, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 12, 1866.
>>
Now, Scott, YOU are going to have to "reconcile" such remarks at the above with what Spurgeon said somewhere else.
So let me see you try your hand on it!
I have no problem with understanding Spurgeon's remarks, for I view them in the light of the WHOLE of his views. You seem intent upon isolating certain remarks and thereby you are pulling a "Glenn Conjurske," who alledged that Spurgeon "was one of the most inconsistent theologians who ever walked the earth" (June, 2001).
I am not going to do that. I am going to see if his statements are not in fact consistent with viewed in the context of the whole.
So, have at it Scott. You are advanced the material, so let's see you "reconcile" it, if you can. I will defer to you on this since you brought it up, and I will reply in due time.
Do you think I have not read that Spurgeon sermon? I have owned that volume since 1955, and have republished it several times as we have published the New Park Street Pulpit. You can't tell me anything about it I don't already know. But evidently, you have just recently stumbled upon it, and think you have found something. So, your task is before you -- have at it.
You not only remind of Conjurske, you also remind me of the Campbellite I once debated, who liked to quote Spurgeon on baptism, and tried to prove from a few quotations from Spurgeon that he agreed with the Campbellites that baptism was necessary to salvation!
I think you will rue the day you tried to make Spurgeon a BABFer! -- Bob L. Ross
SCOTT TO THE RESCUE!
Scott said...
SBTS Student,
SBTS student( You will reap what you sow).Please handle this the right way first. Your not wrong for disagreeing with Nettles but you are going about it in a sinful way. Bob and Charles are so desprate for info that they will commit sin with you. Go to Nettles alone. Remember you will Reap What You Sow!
BOB'S COMMENT:
Scott, you seem to be implying that Dr. Nettles may have uttered something about me that he would not want publicized.
I'm ashamed of you, Scott! I have more regard for Dr. Nettles than to think he would engage in saying something about me in class that he would not say to my face! I doubt if the Dr. Nettles I have known will appreciate your implication!
Dr. Nettles has always corresponded with me in respect, frankness, and honesty, so far as I could discern. I would never suspect he would say something derogatory or offensive about me of which he would be ashamed! He never, to my knowledge, called me a "goofball" or "quack"!
I only wish I could say the same about you! In view of your malicious remarks which are public, it would probably be unprintable what you might say in some other context!
BTW, Scott, you do not have to feel like the "Lone Ranger" in regard to my hanging up on you. I hang up on someone practically every day, especially those who think they have the sovereign right to ring me up to consume my time with their particular sales pitch, whether it is something pertaining to religion or something pertaining to other areas. When I detect that this is a waste of my time, I bid them goodby with a "God Bless You," and hang up.-- Bob Ross
SBTS Student,
I, too, am a SBTS student and my name is Timmy Brister. What's yours? For you to take a blog such as this to throw Dr. Nettles' name without context and verification without providing your own is outright hypocrisy. This blog is desperate for half-truths and faceless comments, and you are fodder for a shameful blog. I am saddened to see you resort this.
Bob Ross, have you ever considered getting your own blog. I look at each post and the comments section and see that at least 80% of the comments are by you. Is this Charles' blog or yours? This entire blog appears to be nothing more than a dialogue between two people who refuse to listen to anyone else who would disagree with them. The comments may appear many, but the camp is awfully small.
Timmy said, you to take a blog such as this to throw Dr. Nettles' name without context and verification
Timmy, Hello!
If Dr. Nettles spoke about Bob Ross in class what is the problem? How is that any different than "Dr." James White using the statements of the sermons and writings of others?
I thought Dr. Nettles teaches history. If he was naming Bob Ross publicly in class then I fail to see how he would mind if anyone heard it.
Your concern is troublesome. Why worry? What are you being taught at Southern that has you so worried that someone may find out?
How are things at UPS, Timmy? I also want to ask you if Southern students are having trouble finding church positions? I hear that they are. Is it true that Southern Baptist churches are shying away from SBTS students because of the Hardshell indoctrination?
Keep those packages on time, Timmy!
Charles
"JESUS . . . THIS IS TIMMY"
We have an appealing, cute little song which has for years been played down here on the Christian station KJIC every day, "Jesus . . . This is Jimmy."
It is sung by Bobby Grove of Hamilton, Ohio, and I sell it in our book store. I have a neighborhood handicapped fellow named "Timmy" who for many years has "hung out" here and done light jobs for me in our store. Timmy and I always like to hear that song, and every time they play the song on radio, Timmy and I chime in and sing, "Jesus . . . This is Timmy."
I thought about that song when I saw this post:
Timmy said...
Bob Ross, have you ever considered getting your own blog. I look at each post and the comments section and see that at least 80% of the comments are by you. Is this Charles' blog or yours? . . .
So, what's the problem, Timmy?
Is there a blogging law that says one has to have his own blog, or that another cannot be generous toward profusely posting another's writings?
Why is it an apparent concern to you? If it is no concern to Charles, why is your "dander" up? Are you with the "Blog Patrol," or something of that order? Where's you Badge?
The fact is, Charles is proving to be an Innovator in Internet blogging, and his blog has quickly attracted the attention of Southern Baptists, who are concerned about the inroads of "Hybrid Calvinism," perhaps more quickly than any other blog before him or on any other subject.
Some other blogs are perhaps even jealous of Charles' successful strategy, of majoring primarily on this one "hot" theme, and of having me under my own voluntary Binding Contract to blog for no blog but the Flyswatter. The strategy seems to be working!
I like it, for I can keep one "iron" hot on this site, whereas many irons might not be so "hot" if I blogged elsewhere, or even tried my own blog.
You don't see me pitching comments to any other blogs, do you? I am not greedy to be "seen of men;" if they don't come here, they will never know of what I write -- unless they ask to be put on my email list.
So I make all my blogging comments here. Some have tried to lure me to a few other blogs to "engage in dialogue" -- perhaps they think it might pump a little "peculiarism" into them -- and I have not been ungrateful of the attention, -- but I am under Contract to Charles. If he ever fires me, then I will just revert back to my former exclusive means of circulating my writings --to my email list of a few hundred names. I do not care to become even partially immersed into the so-called "bloggosphere" with the likes of the Pyromanists, the Monkstrosities, the Chiliasts, or "London Bridges is Falling Down." I would rather watch an hour of the Three Stooges than waste time on perusing blogs!
Other than Charles,' I have yet to see a blogsite which is of sufficient appeal to me to spend time either reading or blogging there.
Not that, in my private opinion, they are all and completely necessarily "bad blogs," but they are so loaded with wood, hay, and stubble, along with a few phantasmagorics, that they are of no interest to me.
I know this perhaps sounds rather eccentric, sardonic, and isolationist, but you have to realize that I am 71 years old, and at this age we expect a little eccentricity, don't we?
Besides, I have a lot of things yet I want to accomplish in publishsing in the few years -- if any -- remaining, and I simply cannot spread myself so thinly as to have my own blog, or to write for other blogs. I yet have a lot of Spurgeon to publish, and time is of the essense. I am now working on Volume 9 of Spurgeon's Works in His Magazine, The Sword and Trowel. Volume 8 came out a few months ago. And we are thinking of another Spanish book of Spurgeon's sermons. Spanish is very BIG down this way, and there seem to be a lot of the Elect among them, just waiting for the harvesting by the Gospel such as Spurgeon preached!
And we won't need any of the James White "born again before faith" White Lightnin' to seduce them!
So as long as Charles doesn't mind, and doesn't think I am "horning in on his territory," I will just drop all of my blusterbombs via my emailings and from Charles' little 2-engine bomber!
And if you find it to be a problem, you know the old saying about TV, don't you? -- you can always change the channel! -- Bob Ross
Timmy said,
Is this Charles' blog or yours? This entire blog appears to be nothing more than a dialogue between two people
Are you afraid of a little dialogue, Timmy? If you have something of substance to contribute, please do, but all you have done so far is complain irrationally
TO BOB: I believe Timmy wants us to shut up about the born again before faith heresy.
Blogging is fine according to Timmy as long as you don't blog a view contrary to his! Otherwise he would have complained about all the SBTS student blogs which promote the BABF heresy. But since he is not complaining about their blogs, but is complaining about mine, I can only surmise that it's the CONTENT, and not the DIALOGUE, that he has a problem with.
TO TIMMY: Keep up the good work at UPS, Timmy!
Charles
Timmy said...
Bob Ross, have you ever considered getting your own blog. I look at each post and the comments section and see that at least 80% of the comments are by you. Is this Charles' blog or yours? . . .
Bob: I believe I have found the root of Timmy's problem with The Calvinist Flyswatter.
I visited Timmy's blog and found multiple posts by Timmy. There are so many in fact that I began to wonder when he has time to deliver those UPS packages or attend the class lectures of Dr. Tom Nettles!
Then I began to look at the comments section and found that most posts have zero comments. Some have one or two, and a few have four. It looks like no one is reading Timmy's voluminous writings!
It must be discouraging to write so much for so few readers. I guess the blogosphere has so many "born again before faith" bloggers that Timmy is merely one voice among many. And not a very loud voice at that.
Timmy: You're welcome to visit The Calvinist Flyswatter anytime! Just don't quit your UPS day job.
Charles
PREMATURE, SCOTT, PREMATURE!
Scott said...
Bob,
Case closed on Spurgeon in his view of Regeneration and it does not support your view!
BOB'S COMMENT:
You are a bit premature, BrotheR Scott!
Do you think I will let you get away with perverting Spurgeon on THIS blogsite without exposing your nefarious CHICANERY? You are as bad as the CAMPBELLITES for distoring Spurgeon!
You are sadly mistaken if you think you will escape!
You will not be allowed to misrepsent Spurgeon on his view concerning the New Birth. When I have more time, I will show how you have discombulated Spurgeon's sermon.
In the meantime, read the following and "eat your heart out" -- may you see these lines in our nightmares! --
The act of TRUSTING Jesus Christ is the act which brings a soul into a state of Grace and is the mark and evidence of our being bought with the blood of the Lord Jesus. . . . See, then, the FOLLY of persons talking about being regenerated who have no faith! It cannot be! It is IMPOSSIBLE! . . . WITHOUT FAITH THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION.
-- Open Heart for A Great Saviour, C. H. SPURGEON, Sermon #669, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 12, 1866.
Dear Chuck
At the top of this blogpost, Bob writes: "Charles, you are rendering an invaluable service to Baptists -- and in fact, all true Creedal Calvinists -- by your blog which is devoted to swatting the false "Calvinism" on the Internet and elsewhere."
I'm glad too, Chuck, for your activities on the blogosphere as it gives yours truly an opportunity to try my hand at swatting as well. Though, I can't see the reason for making a distinction between "false" Calvinism and any other kind. Why not simply backtrack along those trails leading to the far-flung reaches and you'll eventually see that the logical remedy is to hack out the weed by its roots. Yep, better to exterminate the Queen than just go after those critters with your swatter or some Mortein or Pea Beau that continue to be born and go forth into the world as just so many more pesky annoyances.
Hey, you know, one of the downsides of blogging is that the topics chop and change so quick --- bit like TV --- and before you know it, you're about as popular as yesterday's newspaper. You've kindly stuck another post of mine on the end of a blogstream which is now at #3 on the "blog parade." Who, however, is likely to go there and read any more when the "hot topic" at the site is now some other subject?
Can I request something? That I "rent" my own blogstring from you. That way, I don't get lost in the blogosphere while all those with typically modern short attention spans continually get sucked to the top by the headline blog of the moment.
Kind regards
Chuckette
A DOSE OF SPURGEON'S "REGENERATIVE SELTZER" FOR SCOTT MORGAN TO NEUTRALIZE THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE "BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH" POTION KNOWN AS "WHITE LIGHTNIN'"
"Faith and Regeneration" (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 1871, #979:
We are most certain that a man must be made a new creature in Christ Jesus, or he is not saved; but some have seen so clearly the importance of this truth that they are for ever and always dwelling upon the great change of conversion, and its fruits, and its consequences, and they hardly appear to remember the glad tidings that whosoever believeth on Christ Jesus hath everlasting life.
Such teachers are apt to set up so high a standard of experience, and to be so exacting as to the marks and signs of a true born child of God, that they greatly discourage sincere seekers, and fall into a species of LEGALITY from which we may again say, "Good Lord, deliver us."
Never let us fail most plainly to testify to the undoubted truth that true faith in Jesus Christ saves the soul, for if we do not we shall hold in legal bondage many who ought long ago to have enjoyed peace, and to have entered into the liberty of the children of God. . . .
If you turn to the third chapter of his [John's] gospel it is very significant that while he records at length our Saviour's exposition of the new birth to Nicodemus, yet in that very same chapter he gives us what is perhaps the plainest piece of gospel in all the Scriptures:
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." [John 3:14, 15]
So, too, in the chapter before us he insists upon a man's being born of God; he brings that up again and again, but evermore does he ascribe wondrous efficacy to faith; he mentions faith as the index of our being born again, faith as overcoming the world, faith as possessing the inward witness, faith as having eternal life -- indeed, he seems as if he could not heap honour enough upon believing, while at the same time he insists upon the grave importance of the inward experience connected with the new birth
Now, if such difficulty occurs to the preacher, we need not wonder that it also arises with the hearer, and causes him questioning. We have known many who, by hearing continually the most precious doctrine that belief in Jesus Christ is saving, have forgotten other truths, and have concluded that they were saved when they were not, have fancied they believed when as yet they were total strangers to the experience which always attends true faith.
They have imagined faith to be the same thing as a presumptuous confidence of safety in Christ, not grounded upon the divine word when rightly understood, nor proved by any facts in their own souls.
Whenever self-examination has been proposed to them they have avoided it as an assault upon their assurance, and when they have been urged to try themselves by gospel tests, they have defended their false peace by the notion that to raise a question about their certain salvation would be unbelief.
Thus, I fear, the conceit of supposed faith in Christ has placed them in an almost hopeless position, since the warnings and admonitions of the gospel have been set aside by their fatal persuasion that it is needless to attend to them, and only necessary to cling tenaciously to the belief that all has been done long ago for us by Christ Jesus, and that godly fear and careful walking are superfluities, if not actually an offence against the gospel.
On the other hand, we have known others who have received the doctrine of justification by faith as a part of their creed, and yet have not accepted it as a practical fact that the believer is saved. They so much feel that they must be renewed in the spirit of their minds, that they are always looking within themselves for evidences, and are the subjects of perpetual doubts. Their natural and frequent song is
"Tis a point I long to know, Oft it causes anxious thought;
Do I love the Lord, or no?Am I his, or am I not?"
These are a class of people to be much more pitied than condemned. Though I would be the very last to spread unbelief, I would be the very first to inculcate holy anxiety. It is one thing for a person to be careful to know that he is really in Christ, and quite another thing for him to doubt the promises of Christ, supposing that they are really made to him.
There is a tendency in some hearts to look too much within, and spend more time studying their outward evidences and their inward feelings, than in learning the fullness, freeness, and all sufficiency of the grace of God in Christ Jesus. They too much obscure the grand evangelical truth that the believer's acceptance with God is not in himself, but in Christ Jesus, that we are cleansed through the blood of Jesus, that we are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus, and are, in a word, "accepted in the Beloved." I earnestly long that these two doctrines may be well balanced in your souls. Only the Holy Spirit can teach you this. >>
>>
At the same time, this faith, wherever it exists, is in every case, without exception, the gift of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. Never yet did a man believe in Jesus with the faith here intended, except the Holy Spirit led him to do so. He has wrought all our works in us, and our faith too. Faith is too celestial a grace to spring up in human nature till it is renewed: faith is in every believer "the gift of God."
You will say to me, "Are these two things consistent?
I reply, "Certainly, for they are both true."
"How consistent?" say you.
“How inconsistent?" say I, and you shall have as much difficulty to prove them inconsistent as I to prove them consistent.
Experience makes them consistent, if theory does not. Men are convinced by the Holy Spirit of sin -- "of sin," saith Christ, "because they believe not on me;" here is one of the truths; but the selfsame hearts are taught by the same Spirit that faith is of the operation of God. (Col. 2:2)
Brethren be willing to see both sides of the shield of truth. Rise above the babyhood which cannot believe two doctrines until it sees the connecting link.
Have you not two eyes, man? Must you needs put one of them out in order to see clearly? Is it impossible to you to use a spiritual stereoscope, and look at two views of truth until they melt into one, and that one becomes more real and actual because it is made up of two?
Many men refuse to see more than one side of a doctrine, and persistently fight against anything which is not on its very surface consistent with their own idea. In the present case I do not find it difficult to believe faith to be at the same time the duty of man and the gift of God; and if others cannot accept the two truths, I am not responsible for their rejection of them; my duty is performed when I have honestly borne witness to them.>>
>>
I beg you to follow me a little in this argument. A certain divine has lately said, "A man's act of believing is not the same as his being saved: it is only in the direction of being saved."
[BOB: Didn't Scott Morgan say something similar to this?]
This is tantamount to a denial that every believer in Christ is at once saved; and the inference is that a man may not conclude that he is saved because he believes in Jesus.
Now, observe how opposed this is to Scripture. It is certain from the Word of God that the man who believes in Jesus is not condemned. Read John 3:18, and many other passages. "He that believeth on Him is not condemned."
Now is not every unregenerate man condemned? Is not a man who is not condemned a saved man? When you are sure on divine authority that the believer is not condemned, how in the name of everything that is rational can you deny that the believer is saved? If he is not condemned, what has he to fear? Will he not rightly conclude that being justified by faith, he has peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ?>>
>>
Our Lord himself, and his apostles, in several places have declared, "He that believeth on him hath everlasting life."
Do not tell me that a sinner who believes in Jesus is to make an advance before he can say he is saved, that a man who trusts Christ is only on his way to salvation, and must wait until he has used the ordinances, and has grown in grace, before he may know that he is saved.
No, the MOMENT that the sinner's trust in placed on the finished work of Jesus he is SAVED.
Heaven and earth may pass away, but that man shall never perish. If only one second ago I trusted the Saviour I am safe; just as safe as the man who has believed in Jesus fifty years, and who has all the while walked uprightly.>>
[MORE DOSES SPURGEON'S "REGENERATIVE SELTZER" forthcoming].
Spurgeon said, Such teachers are apt to set up so high a standard of experience, and to be so exacting as to the marks and signs of a true born child of God,
If only Mark Dever would read this! Maybe he would drop his "no baptism for children" policy.
I cannot understand why Dever is so popular with Dr. Mohler when Dever's theology and practices are anathema to Southern Baptists everywhere!
Charles
MORE ELIXIR FOR SCOTT'S INVERTED EYESIGHT PROBABLY DUE TO TOO MUCH KUDZU IN HIS SALAD
Scott said...
Bob,
You have shown absolutely Nothing that supports your position ! Nothing ! You have truly shown that your mind is getting " Foggy" with your old age.
SPURGEON TO SCOTT:
THE IMPLANTATION
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”
“The word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”
Now, the gospel is of use to us because it is not of human origin. If it were of the flesh, all it could do for us would not land us beyond the flesh; but the gospel of Jesus Christ is super-human, divine, and spiritual. . . .
The only word that can bless you and be a SEED IN YOUR SOUL must be the living
and incorruptible WORD of the eternal Spirit.
Now this is the incorruptible word, that “God was made flesh and dwelt among us;” that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses
unto them.”
This is the incorruptible WORD, that “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
“God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.”
Now, brethren, this is the SEED; but before it can grow in your soul, it must be planted there by the Spirit. Do you receive it this morning? Then the Holy Spirit implants it in your soul.
Do you leap up to it, and say, “I believe it! I grasp it! On the incarnate God I fix my hope; the substitutionary sacrifice, the complete atonement of Christ is all my confidence; I am reconciled to God by the blood of Jesus.”
Then you possess the living seed within your soul
.
And what is the result of it?
Why, then there comes, according to the text,
a new life into us, as the result of the indwelling of the living word, and our
being BORN AGAIN BY IT.
A new life it is; it is not the old nature putting out its better parts; not the old Adam refining and purifying itself, and rising to something better. No; have we not said aforetime that the flesh withers and the flower thereof fades? It is an entirely new life.
Ye are as much new creatures at your regeneration, as if you had never existed, and had been for the first time created. . . . O that God, who has withered in the souls of any of you that which is of the flesh, may speedily grant you the NEW BIRTH THROUGH THE WORD
Now observe, to close, wherever this NEW LIFE COMES THROUGH THE WORD, it is incorruptible, it lives and abides for ever. . . .
Above all, remember what the QUICKENING SEED is, and reverence it when you hear it preached, “for this is the WORD which by the GOSPEL is preached unto you.”
Respect it, and receive it.
Remember that the QUICKENING SEED is all wrapped up in this sentence: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”
Brother Bob, Hello!
Scott is not the only one to misrepresent Spurgeon.
It seems to be a pastime for the hyper/hybrid Calvinists (Berkhofites).
Charles
Chuckette wrote: one of the downsides of blogging is that the topics chop and change so quick --- bit like TV --- and before you know it, you're about as popular as yesterday's newspaper. You've kindly stuck another post of mine on the end of a blogstream which is now at #3 on the "blog parade." Who, however, is likely to go there and read any more when the "hot topic" at the site is now some other subject?
That's the nature of the beast.
Can I request something? That I "rent" my own blogstring from you. That way, I don't get lost in the blogosphere while all those with typically modern short attention spans continually get sucked to the top by the headline blog of the moment.
I don't know what "rent my own blogstring" means.
I'll give you the same advice that the hyper/Hardshell Calvinists gave me: Start your own blog. That way you'll be able to post what you want and put it in the order that you want.
Charles
Dear Chuck
CHUCK: I don't know what "rent my own blogstring" means.
Easy to see my humo(u)r's wasted on this boy. :-)
Chuck, I'd like to conduct a little survey, with your permission. And that's this: Is anyone out there in blogland reading my effort at the superannuated end of the "An overview of the "Born Again Before Faith" debate" blogstring? "Uh, Breaker One-Nine, this here's the Rubber Duck. You got a copy on me Pig-Pen? C'mon." Hello, the lights are on, but is anyone home? El capiche? Testing, testing. Do we have any takers? 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello. Going once, going twice, sold to the man in the dilapidated fez.
(You know Chuck, you're awful quiet for a blog director. Or, are blog directors normally on the retiring side? Maybe in the daytime you have a very mild-mannered, "Clark Kent" persona: business suit, black-framed glasses, attaché case, that kind of thing. But after hours, just before you open the swatshop for business, you step into a phone booth and change from your Armani threads into your other get-out, which includes a special contrasting kilt for a personalized touch, and emerge as ... you guessed it ... "Faster than a speeding flyswatter! More powerful than a Hardshell broadside! Able to leap 2,000 Pedobaptists in a single bound!" Look, up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Superchuck!!)
An' yes, as 'tis writ: Even a fool when he holdeth his peace is counted wise and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Yeah, so, if, as I suspect, no one cares much more an' a hoot 'n' a holler to read my highly edifying, and now more abbreviated, pieces of blogosophical disambiguation, I might as well abandon ship (except for the occasional tip-toe through the TULIPs) and go chase Bluey and his fleas 'round the backyard.
What about you, Chuck, you readin' 'em? Iffin you are, are you gittin' anything outta the exercise, apart from mental dyspepsia?
CHUCK: I'll give you the same advice that the hyper/Hardshell Calvinists gave me: Start your own blog.
Me, start my own blog? Not on your nellie, Chuckles! Having too much fun bushbashing 'round yours. :-)
Take it easy, cobber.
Kind regards
The Kangaroo Kid
HOW DID SCOTT MORGAN GET "BORN AGAIN" BEFORE BELIEVING, IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SPURGEON'S QUOTES?
Scott said...
Myself and others can't trust you to quote Spurgeon correctly!
Other than drinking the "White Lightnin'" brewed by James White, or eating too much Kudzu, what accounts for Scott Morgan's phantasmagoria that he was "born again" before he ever believed in Jesus Christ -- after reading such a clear delineation of the New Birth by C. H. Spurgeon below? Was Scott elected before the foundation of the world to be regenerated before he was called by the WORD and SPIRT, such as the Hardshells say they were regenerated?
Here is the quote from C. H. Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 40, sermon #2386, page 530, which sets forth the Creedal Calvinist view on the matter:
>>
The man who believes in Christ Jesus is born again, and EVERY MAN WHO IS BORN AGAIN BELIEVES in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The two things COME TOGETHER, live together, and are perfected together.
>>
Has Scott been hanging around the Hardshells, and able to get "born again" without faith?
Spurgeon:
>>
Regeneration, in the Scriptures, is always put SIDE BY SIDE WITH FAITH, as anybody can see who will read the Scripture without prejudice, seeking to know the truth that is there revealed. (Spurgeon, #3121, page 584).
>>
Somehow, Scott is "out of step" with Spurgeon, for Scott has "regeneration" and faith" marching in a different formation -- with "regeneration" going out in front of faith!
Spurgeon says in a sermon, "The Necessity of Regeneration:"
>>
But what is it to be born again? I have already said that I cannot tell you how the Spirit of God operates upon the unregenerate, making them to be new creatures in Christ Jesus. I know that he usually operates THROUGH THE WORD, through the proclamation of the truth of the GOSPEL.
In his first Epistle, he [Peter] writes concerning “being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever.”
This living seed is sown within our hearts, and there it begins to grow, “first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.” The new birth is the implanting of that living seed within the soul; it is the creation within us of that new, divine, immortal life. We must have that life or we cannot see or enter the kingdom of God.
>>
Scott seems to have somehow been able to bypass being "born by the Word," or having the Living Seed sown in his heart, and so he apparently got the "new birth" without believing in Christ as He is presented in the Word.
In another sermon, Spurgeon similarly says:
>>
Ask me how it is that the same truth has an effect upon the one, and not upon his fellow: I reply, because the mysterious Spirit of the living God GOES WITH THE TRUTH to one heart and not to the other. The one only feels the force of truth, and that may be strong enough to make him tremble, like Felix; but the other feels the Spirit going with the truth, and that renews the man, regenerates him, and causes him to pass into that gracious condition which is called the state of salvation. This change takes place instantaneously. It is as miraculous a change as any miracle of which we read in Scripture. It is supremely supernatural. (NPSP, Volume 4, page 18).
>>
Scott was evidently an exception to the case, for he apparently had the Spirit come to him without "going with the truth." Wonder how he managed to get elected to be regenerated without the Spirit's "going with the truth"?
In still another sermon, Spurgeon says;
>>
Salvation is not begun in the soul BY THE MEANS OF GRACE APART FROM THE THE HOLY SPIRIT. No man in the world is at liberty to neglect the MEANS that God has appointed. If a house be builded for prayer, that man must expect no blessing who neglects to tread its floor. If a pulpit be erected for the ministration of the Word, no man must expect (although we do sometimes get more than we expect) to be saved except by the hearing of the Word.(NPSP, Volume 4, pages 106, 107).
Again, in Scott's case, there evidently were no "means of Grace" necessary, as he was "born again" before he ever believed in accordance with the "means of grace."
In the light of these clear statements by Spurgeon on Bible teaching, would Scott Morgan tell us how he got "born again" BEFORE he ever believed in Jesus Christ?
Was he "born again" down at the Hardshell Baptist Church where such phantasamagorical things are said to happen once or twice a year?
Was Scott hit by one of those "Direct Operations" for which the Hardshells are famous?
-- Bob L. Ross
SPURGEON "LOOKED AND LIVED,"
BUT SCOTT MORGAN "LIVED AMD LOOKED"!
Bob to Charles
Charles, have you ever read the story by Spurgeon of his new birth?
We have it on our website at:
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/chslook.htm
>>It was in words such as these that Spurgeon remembered the details of what took place that Sunday morning in Artillery Street Chapel, Colchester, 1850 —
[Charles, please notice that Spurgeon was born again in connection with God's Word in Isaiah 45:22, rather than being hit with "Directo Operation" such as Brother Scott Morgan apparently had to be "born again before faith."]
SPURGEON:
"It was about twenty-six years ago, twenty-six years exactly last Thursday [January 6, 1850] that I looked unto the Lord, and found salvation, through this text -- Isaiah 45:22 —"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.".
You have often heard me tell how I had been wandering about, seeking rest, and finding none, till a plain, unlettered, lay preacher among the Primitive Methodists stood up in the pulpit, and gave out this passage as his text.
[Charles, please note that it was an Arminian preacher, not a Hybrid Calvinist, under whom Spurgeon was born again. This may account for the fact that he always appreciated the Gospel when preached by either Arminian or Calvinist -- something which does not seem to be appreciated by Brother Scott Morgan, the Founders, and other Hybrid Calvinists].
He had not much to say, thank God, for that compelled him to keep on repeating his text, and there was nothing needed — by me, at any rate, — except his text. I remember how he said, —
"It is Christ that speaks. I am in the garden in an agony, pouring out my soul unto death; I am on the tree, dying for sinners; look unto Me! Look unto Me! that is all you have to do. A child can look. One who is almost an idiot can look. However weak, or however poor, a man may be, he can look; and if he looks, the promise is that he shall live."
Then, stopping, he pointed to where I was sitting under the gallery, and he said,
"That young man there looks very miserable."
I expect I did, for that is how I felt. Then he said,
"There is no hope for you young man, or any chance of getting rid of your sin, but by LOOKING TO JESUS;" and he shouted, as I think only a Primitive Methodist can,
"Look! Look, young man! LOOK NOW!"
And I did look; and when they sang a hallelujah before they went home, in their own earnest way, I am sure I joined in it.
It happened to be a day when the snow was lying deep, and more was falling; so, as I went home, those words of David kept ringing through my heart, 'Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow'; and it seemed as if all nature was in accord with that blessed deliverance from sin which I had found in a single moment by looking to Jesus."
— From #2867, MTP Vol. 50, 1904, pg. 37.
Charles, you can see that Spurgeon (1) LOOKED and (2) LIVED. It was all in "a single moment," he said. It was "by looking to Jesus."
Unfortunately, I suppose that Spurgeon, like some of the rest of us who are not pedo-regenerationists, was not privileged to be elected before the foundation of the world to be "born again before faith" -- like Brother Scott Morgan and his Founders' friends -- and thereby not have to have the experience of hearing an Arminian exhort him to look and live, "looking unto Jesus."
Anyway, Charles, I hope Spurgeon's conversion at least "counts," even if it does not meet the criteria of the "ordo salutis" of Dr. Shedd, Dr. Berkhof, Dr. Sproul, Dr. Nettles, Dr. Mohler, Scott Morgan, Mark Dever, the Founders, Jim Eliff, Tom Ascol, etc.
It would certainly be a shame if at this late date in history Brother Jim Eliff somehow figured it out that Spurgeon's conversion will have to be put into the category of "false professions"!
As long as Spurgeon's conversion is accepted as legit, Brother Charles, maybe the rest of us who were not "born again before faith" might yet be spared to somehow get a "bleacher seat" in Heaven along with some of the Mormons who do not make it to the box seats! -- Bob L. Ross
WISHFUL THINKER, SCOTT MORGAN
Scott said...
think you would be silent after Gene Bridges " Put a good South Georgia whoopin on you at his blog"! . . .Article 2 teaches clearly that a Elect person must be made " Alive" to enable him to answer God's call and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. . . . It's amazing how the last two Spurgeon quotes have made you a " Little quiet to comment on his comments on Regeneration".
Scott, you are hallucinating again . . . are you eating too much Kudzu? Or have you just had too much White Lightnin'?
Did you read Spurgeon's conversion account, Scott? How he "looked and lived"? That is what you call a "coup de grace," Scott.
I told you would "rue the day" you tried to pervert Spurgeon to support your view, and that I would not allow you to get away with it. Now you know what was in store for you, don't you?
This is the same method I have so successfully used on the Campbellites when they say one is not saved until baptism. I show them how Alexander Campbell and their other "restorers" all professed to saved BEFORE baptism. That sorta kills the spirit when I read them how those "restorers" said they got saved.
So it is with you Scott. Spurgeon's own personal testimony kills your theory that one is "born again before faith." Spurgeon got saved under Arminian preaching by "looking unto Jesus."
Spurgeon never said a word about being "born again before looking," like you claim you got "regenerated" before you believed.
Was it down at the Hardshell church where your "regeneration" happened, Scott? That's about the only place in Georgia where I know you could get "regenerated" without believing on Christ -- except of course down at a pedo-regenerationist church . . . but then, you are not an infant, are you? So the only other place where you could get "regenerated" before faith would be at a Hardshell church, wouldn't it?
Spurgeon got saved in an Arminian church, Scott. Where did you get saved before believing in Jesus? Would it be safe to say you claimed to have been "saved" in a church which you now would describe as "Arminian"? But after reading James White, you now realize that you actually was "regenerated" before you ever believed when you walked down the aisle at the Arminian church? I think that is they way it was with James, too. He later "woke up" to realize he had already been "regenerated" beforehand.
If so, you may have something in common with Spurgeon . . . but that is probably the only thing.
Let me know where you got saved, Scott, and we will know if you have at least one thing in common with Spurgeon.
I hope you won't deny that Spurgeon got saved at that Arminian church as he says he did, Scott.
If you got "born again" before believing in Christ, that's OK by me if you really did. I am not one to "dispute facts" -- similar to what Spurgeon said about infant baptismal "regeneration." If you were "regenerated" without believing in Jesus, so be it. I suppose you ought to know more about it than I do, since you have read so much about it in James White's writings. Do you tell your hearers from the pulpit that they can be "regenerated" without believing in Jesus, too?
I have put up scores of quotes from Spurgeon, but you are not happy with them, which is typical of Hardshells.
Why don't you join the those Hardshells? They got "regenerated" just like you and James White, your guru, got "regenerated" wthout believing in Jesus. James has already preached for a Hardshell church in Georgia, so maybe you both could join up with that church. You could have some of that "sweet" fellowship they like to talk about. -- Bob Ross
ROBERT McKAY WRITES
IN AN EMAIL TO BOB:
The great tragedy of the Reformation -- as vital a work of the Spirit as the Reformation was -- is that so many of the Reformers only came partway out of Rome.
They affirmed sola scriptura, but retained in their doctrine and practice elements of Romanism (so that in some cases the result of their work was simply Catholicism without the pope).
Baby baptism and baptismal regeneration are two of these items (and the two go together; if baptism saves, then the earlier in life you baptize someone the earlier he's saved).
If great men like Luther and Calvin had made a complete break with Rome, we wouldn't today be debating these matters (just as if King James hadn't restricted the translators' freedom regarding the "old ecclesiastical words" there would be no debate over the "mode of baptism").
And, I suspect, if they'd come all the way out of Rome, there wouldn't be a big debate over pre-faith regeneration. It seems to me . . . that you can't really come up with the idea of regeneration before faith (or absent the Word) unless somewhere in your doctrinal heritage there's the idea that salvation can come to unknowing babies by means of external ordinances or through the faith of other individuals.. . .
Robert McKay
WHY?
Scott said...
OH Bob,
Why did Spurgeon Look ?
You read his testimony, Scott. Did you not see the answer? Read it again. I tire of ALWAYS having to do your homework for you.
BTW -- you did not tell me -- where you were "regenerated" before you believed in Jesus? I am anxious to know if you, like Spurgeon, were "called" under the preaching of an Arminian or a Hybrid Calvinist. You are not ashamed of your "father in the faith," are you? Who was that "begot" you before you believed in Jesus? -- Bob
WHY? #2
Scott said...
OH Bob,
Why did Spurgeon Look ?
Scott, it seems to me that the more important question for you to settle is WHY DID HE LIVE?
As I understand your alleged new birth experience, you "lived" before you "looked."
As I read Spurgeon, he "looked and lived" in "a single moment."
Scott, you might as well hoof it on over to the Hardshell church, for you are never going to find any correspondence between your alleged "new birth" before you believed, and Spurgeon's testimony of "looking and living."
Among Baptists, only the Hardshells think they were "born again before faith," and they will gladly rebaptize you and take you in. Then you can preach "born again before faith" to them to your heart's content. They have personally told me that they get "most of their ministers" from apostate missionary "means" Baptists who come over to their way of thinking on the "new birth," so you won't be the first to have left us for their fellowship. Lassere Bradley, Jr. went over to them on this doctrine, as did Eddie Garrett, a young preacher I helped ordain when he was a sound Confessional Baptist. Some others I have known have also gone over to them on this point of doctrine.
Spurgeon said, "I looked unto the Lord, and found salvation, through this text -- Isaiah 45:22 —'LOOK unto me, and be ye SAVED, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.'
Spurgeon said the Arminian preacher called out, "Look! Look, young man! LOOK NOW!"
"And I did look; and when they sang a hallelujah before they went home, in their own earnest way, I am sure I joined in it.
"It happened to be a day when the snow was lying deep, and more was falling; so, as I went home, those words of David kept ringing through my heart, 'Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow'; and it seemed as if all nature was in accord with that blessed deliverance from sin which I had found in a single moment BY LOOKING to Jesus."
Since you, Scott, are doubtlessly hamstrung for any answer to "Why did he LIVE?" it would perhaps be appropriate to let Spurgeon explain why he lived.
SPURGEON:
>>
My gratitude most of all is due to God, not for books, but for the preached Word, — and that too addressed to me by a poor, uneducated man, a man who had never received any training for the ministry, and probably will never be heard of in this life, a man engaged in business, no doubt of a humble kind, during the week, but who had just enough of grace to say on the Sabbath, “Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.”
The books were good, but the man was better. The revealed Word awakened me; but it was the preached Word that SAVED me; and I must ever attach peculiar value to the hearing of the truth, for by it I received the joy and peace in which my soul delights.
While under concern of soul, I resolved that I would attend all the places of worship in the town where I lived, in order that I might find out the way of salvation.
>>
There you have the answer to "Why he lived," Brother Scott. The Word of God, which is empowered by the Spirit (John 6:63) awakened him and saved him.
Just as our Baptist Confession says in Chapter 10, called by the WORD and SPIRIT unto "believing to the SAVING of the soul" (Chapter 14).
No "born again before faith" is to be found in Spurgeon's experience, Brother Scott. Pass the word along to James White before the Caners give him Spurgeon's testimony for his supper in Lynchburg! If anybody can prove that Spurgeon was "born again" before he looked and lived, surely James would be the man . .. right?
So . . . just hike on over to the Hardshells, Scott, and I will tell you exactly what they will tell you. They will tell you that Spurgeon experienced what the Hardshells call "time salvation," which they say is where you place everything AFTER you were born again. And they will tell you that "born again" has to do with "eternal salvation," and faith has to do with "time salvation." Furthermore, they will tell you that one can have "eternal salvation" and never even hear and believe in Jesus Christ for "time salvation."
They will also tell you that any man in the whole wide world who has any kind of interest whatsoever in "God," whether in the God of Christianity or the "God" of idolatry, has been "born again," no matter if he ever hears the name of Jesus Christ! In fact, you will sooner find the "needle in the haystack" than you will find an "unregenerate" in this world, according to the Hardshells. They just about have "universal regeneration."
Now that is where you belong, Scott -- with the Hardshells. So go on and get out of here and leave us to our alleged ignorance! -- Bob L. Ross
Mr Swatter,
You stated, Reformed Calvinists have taken a liking recently to looking at the Baptist Faith and Message for support of their heresy that a person is born again before he is saved. One writer on the subject has been Gene Bridges who blogs here, there, and everywhere. (Where do you find the time, Gene?). Perhaps I’ve missed it but where in any of these links does Gene Bridges literally state he adheres to the 2000 BF&M, as a Reformed Calvinist (do you mean Reformed Baptist?), concerning the doctrine of Regeneration and if it is not in any of these links do you know where his statements can be found where he literally states a reliance upon the 2000 BF&M for his understanding of Regeneration? In fact, other than the three you mentioned in your Blog (Bridges, Schreiner and ‘a’ Pastor in Georgia, who hardly represent the whole of Reformed Baptists), do you have source documents where literal statements are made addressing the same issue?
You also stated, A Pastor in Georgia, who is affiliated with the Founders Ministries, evidently has a serious misunderstanding about the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, the Southern Baptist Convention's Statement of Faith.
The sad fact is, however, he is not alone in this error, for it appears that a number of Founders' affiliates agree with him, and even one or more professors on the Faculty at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
First, Section IV of the 2000 BF&M states the following (emphasis is mine):
IV. Salvation
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers BECOME new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Perhaps you can explain why responding to something does not follow (in logical order) that to which one responds? In order to respond there must first be something which causes the response, obviously and logically. Now, if faith is the response, which the 2000 BF&M clearly states (Regeneration…is a work of God's grace, to which the sinner responds), then Regeneration is that to which one responds with faith, therefore, the Georgia Pastor is correct and you have either ignored what section IV clearly states or you do not understand what it states which makes makes the error yours, does it not?
You claim Schreiner’s aberrant theology has people born again before exercising faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, or born again unbelievers! You are in error due to falacous reasoning. If one is truly ‘born-again’ there can not be an absence of salvific faith. Do you disagree with this? The problem you have is that you seem to not understand that an ungodly person remains salvifically dead until the operation of the Holy Spirit circumcises the heart, thereby removing the dead heart and replacing it with a living heart. Therefore, if you are correct, then you have the spiritually dead ungodly person deciding if he wants to be saved by judging the worthiness of God’s salvation and forgiveness and if he should decide if God is worthy of his acceptance then the Holy Spirt circumcizes his heart. That is, I’m assuming you believe the Holy Spirit has an integral part in one’s salvation by circumcizing a ‘dead’ heart. Your view is that the ungodly person does this with a ‘dead’ heart. At least Schreiner’s view has Biblical foundation while yours is contrary to Scripture. You might, indeed, desire to hold on to your man-centered ‘free-will’ theism but John 1:12 & 13 make it plainly clear that one does not receive Christ (salvifically) as an act of one’s will and unless one makes decisions with an absence of one’s ‘will’ then one cannot possibly choose/decide to be saved, especially while they still have a dead heart.
You stated, Except for a few extreme Calvinist "Founders Ministry" types, Southern Baptists do not believe what Schreiner is teaching. The doctrine which Schreiner promotes was spawn, not from Baptists, but from pedobaptists as demonstrated by Bob Ross in his article, Regeneration in Relation to Faith in Calvinist Theology. The born again before faith view is neither biblical nor Baptist is both a misrepresentation and ‘some’ truth. It is a misrepresentation to refer to “Founders Ministry” types as extreme Calvinists (hyper-Calvinists) and you should know this if you’ve conducted any examination of the facts at all, which, at this point is very doubtful considering your statement. Or, perhaps you are merely inventing your own personal view of what an extreme Calvinist is in order to justify your own designed conclusions that ‘they’ are wrong and ‘you’ are correct, you know, a ‘strawman’ defense. Or it might be that you just simply don’t know what an ‘extreme Calvinist’ is and are just buying into the deliberate misrepresentations of others in your camp.
However, it is true that many Southern Baptists do not believe what Schreiner is teaching, which proves what? Many Southern Baptists know as much about Calvinism as they know about the Bible (very little) and most simply regurgitate the same misrepresentations as others who also do not know what they are talking about.
Bob Ross also seems to not be able to understand the plain text of the BF&M in section IV with his statement, Nothing in this BF&M indicates that Southern Baptists -- including 2-point Calvinist Adrian Rogers -- endorsed the theory of "born again before faith." The 2-point Calvinist, Adrian Rogers, helped draft this BF&M, and he was not as strong on Calvinism as 5-point Calvinist R. Albert Mohler, and Rogers would have NEVER agreed to a statement of faith which affirmed "born again before faith." The Founders Ministries, of all people, know this, for Rogers was often in conflict with the Founders on doctrinal issues.
Furthermore, it is plain that the statement has "regeneration" as "part of "salvation," and it says that "There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."
Therefore, there is "no regeneration" apart from faith, according to the statement of faith. To begin with, obviously Bob Ross is unaware that Adrian Rogers rejected ALL 5 points of Calvinism, therefore Bob is wrong thinking Adrian Rogers was a 2-point Calvinist.
Furthermore, section IV plainly states,
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers BECOME new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
It appears as though both of you have chosen to ignore the clear statement in the 2000 BF&M that faith is a response to regeneration and both of you have also rejected the clear text of Holy Scripture as follows (emphasis is mine),
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, Which were born, not of blood, not of the will of the flesh, not of the will of man, but of God, John 1:12,13.
I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, Romans 9:15,16.
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will…, Ephesians 1:1,2.
Adrian Rogers was the absolute worst example of an anti-Calvinist but that made him all the more appealing to those who didn’t know what they were talking about (and didn't care). They didn’t have to know what they were talking about because they merely repeated Adrian Rogers' errors. He had enough ‘strawmen’ to sell straw on the stock exchange and become a millionare. Furthermore, in spite of his attacks and deliberate misrepresentations, Adrian Rogers declined every request (to my knowledge) to defend his outragously false accusations against Calvinism. The only correct thing Bob Ross stated is that Adrian Rogers was not as strong on Calvinism as 5-point Calvinist R. Albert Mohler. However, that means very little considering he was not strong on an accurate knowledge and truthful presentation of Calvinism at all yet Adrian Rogers did sign his name to the fact that the BF&M clearly states faith responds to regeneration, something neither you nor Bob Ross wants to point out.
In addition to this, Bob Ross deliberately misrepresents those at Founders Ministries (as well as many Reformed Baptists) as pedobaptists. If Bob Ross had also taken the time to do any credible investigation, he would have discovered with absolute certainty that those whom he falsely accuses are NOT pedobaptists. Not only does Bob Ross falsely accuse fellow brothers and sisters in Christ but blatantly contradicts his own view of infant salvation with this statement, These Pedobaptists have BABIES REGENERATED by a "Direct Operation" of the Spirit without the use of Truth as a "Means," and before the babies are even capable of "understanding" and "believing" in Christ. If this is what Bob Ross truly believes, then he (and you I assume) believe ALL infants are doomed to eternity in Hell because they receive no ‘Direct Operation’ of the Spirit. Do you or Bob Ross believe these infants can have salvation apart from exercising ‘faith’ which, in your view, always precludes Regeneration? Afterall, Bob clearly stated babies are not regenerated before they can believe in Christ which, in your views, demands active, knowledgable and deliberate faith, which the unborn don't have, do they? But Scripture has the true view of salvation, For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth…, Romans 9:11. Scripture makes it quite clear that election to receive salvation is of God who calls and that it is a purposeful calling in order to receive the salvation Jesus secured for them by His death, burial and resurrection.
Bob Ross stated, While some few in the past may have broadly used the term "regeneration" to include the pre-faith influence of the Holy Spirit, it is obvious that they never intended to affirm that one is "born again" before faith, but that the initial internal influence of the Holy Spirit was at the most only a preparatory influence to the creation of the faith which is the new birth (1 John 5:4). It's interesting how Bob makes these statements about 'some' who are never mentioned or identified! I have seen many pathetic attempts to self-justify one’s own personal view of salvation but never one so un-Biblical and anti-Biblical and so blatantly contradictory to Scripture as this. To begin with, 1 John 5:4 is completely void of any reference to what Bob Ross is claiming. Where does 1 John 5:4 address regeneration, being born-again or especially a preparatory influence to the creation of faith? John’s statement concerns itself with the faith of a believer (one who is already born-again) who overcomes the power of sin we meet on a daily basis as we journey through the Christian life. In fact, where does Scripture (anywhere) address a preparatory influence to the creation of faith which is the new birth? This is no doubt the invention of Bob Ross’ imaginative Soteriology in order to self-justify his own man-centered view of salvation but it has no foundation in Scripture at all.
And you call Calvinists heretics!!!
A REPLY TO ANOTHER "BORN AGAIN
BEFORE FAITHITE," SAM HUGHEY
Bob's Comment: Really, this stuff by Hughey is so deficient that it does not deserve attention. All the points have been covered in various threads, but I will comment on some of the remarks just to prevent Hughey from thinking vaingloriously that he has posted anything of significance:
HUGHEY:
First, Section IV of the 2000 BF&M states the following (emphasis is mine): . . . .
Regeneration is that to which one responds with faith, therefore, the Georgia Pastor is correct and you have either ignored what section IV clearly states or you do not understand what it states which makes makes the error yours, does it not?
REPLY:
In bringing to pass the New Birth, the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God, as the BF&M affirms in Article II-C -- "Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts of sin, of righteousness, of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and EFFECTS REGENERATION."
This clearly indicates the pre-new birth influence of the Holy Spirit in bringing about regeneration or new birth does not within itself constitute the new birth, but leads to the EFFECTING OF REGENERATION.
HUGHEY:
If one is truly ‘born-again’ there can not be an absence of salvific faith. Do you disagree with this?
REPLY:
No, we do not. But the pedo-regenerationists such as Shedd, Berkhof, and Frame certainly disagree. For example, they have infants born to believers regenerated in early infancy, and Frame even affirms they are regenerated before birth. See the thread on Frame.
HUGHEY:
The problem you have is that you seem to not understand that an ungodly person remains salvifically dead until the operation of the Holy Spirit circumcises the heart, thereby removing the dead heart and replacing it with a living heart.
REPLY:
Raising the dead is illustrated in the case of Ezekiel's dry bones in Ezekiel 37. There may be a noise, a shaking, and a coming together by the bones before life is actually restored. Life is only restored after breath is given. So in the case of the sinner, until he is united to Christ who is our Life, by the birth of faith (1 John 5:4), he has not been restored to life. The man in whom faith has been born is the man who has been born of God (1 John 5:4).
HUGHEY:
That is, I’m assuming you believe the Holy Spirit has an integral part in one’s salvation by circumcizing a ‘dead’ heart.
REPLY:
The work done by the Spirit in the dead sinner is described by the Baptist Confessions as follows. These Confessions make no reference to a supposed "regeneration" which make a semi-Pelagian out of the sinner, making the sinner to be a virtual "new creation" even before he is in Christ or a believer:
The Baptist Confession of 1644-46 affirms that "Faith is ordinarily begotten 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. -- Article XXIV.
According to your view, Hughey, the sinner is not dead, but is already a new creation before he believes.
The Baptist Confession of 1689, Article 10:
Those whom God has predestinated to life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time to effectually call by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death which they are in by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. He enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God. He takes away their heart of stone and gives to them a heart of flesh. He renews their wills, and by His almighty power, causes them to desire and pursue that which is good. He effectually draws them to Jesus Christ, yet in such a way that they come absolutely freely, being made willing by His grace.
The Baptist Confession of 1689, Article 14: The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the SAVING of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word . . .
According to you, Hughey, they are already SAVED (born again) before they believe. So you are in conflict with this Baptist Confession.
HUGHEY:
Your view is that the ungodly person does this with a ‘dead’ heart.
REPLY:
We are simply stating the view presented in the Baptist Confession, as quoted above. The 1644 Confession says "it [the creature] being wholly passive, and DEAD in trespasses and sins, DOTH BELIEVE," etc.
HUGHEY:
John 1:12 & 13 make it plainly clear that one does not receive Christ (salvifically) as an act of one’s will and unless one makes decisions with an absence of one’s ‘will’ then one cannot possibly choose/decide to be saved, especially while they still have a dead heart.
REPLY:
But on the role of saving faith, the Baptist Confession of 1689 says, "the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon (John 1:12) him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."
The Baptist Confession of 1644-46 refers to texts in John :1:12; 3:14, 15, saying, "The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, ANY qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a SINNER AND UNGODLY, to receive Christ crucified, dead and buried, and risen again; who is made a prince and a Savior for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him. John 3:14,15, 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37; 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5, 5:8; Acts 5:30,31, 2:36, 1 Cor. 1:22,24.
HUGHEY:
It is a misrepresentation to refer to “Founders Ministry” types as extreme Calvinists (hyper-Calvinists)
REPLY:
We prefer to the term "Hybrid" for the Founders since so many of them have adopted the pedo-regenerationist view of 'born again before faith,' which is actually a mixture of (1) the Confessional view on the efficient power of the Spirit and (2) the Hardshell Baptist/Pedo-regenerationist view of regeneration by the Spirit alone apart from the Word as an instrumental means. This view is put forth by Shedd and Berkhof, the latter theology being highly endorsed by the Founders.
HUGHEY:
However, it is true that many Southern Baptists do not believe what Schreiner is teaching, which proves what?
REPLY:
It proves that Schreiner and those who take this view do not represent the views of "many Southern Baptists" who are Creedal Calvinists, such as myself, as well as many who were responsible for the conservative resurgence.
Schreiner represents the view held by the pedo-regenerationists such as Shedd, Berkhof, Frame, and Sproul -- regeneration apart from the Word as the necessary instrumental cause of the new birth -- a view which they admit departs from the 17th century Calvinists, including Calvin himself.
HUGHEY:
Many Southern Baptists know as much about Calvinism as they know about the Bible (very little) and most simply regurgitate the same misrepresentations as others who also do not know what they are talking about.
REPLY:
This is certainly true of the Founders and even of your own website. You quote, for example, B. H. Carroll, a Southern Baptist who taught the very opposite of the Founders on the doctrine of regeneration, as did Southern Baptist John L. Dagg. You can even find Dagg's difference with the Founders on their website, where he teaches that "faith precedes" in regeneration.
HUGHEY:
To begin with, obviously Bob Ross is unaware that Adrian Rogers rejected ALL 5 points of Calvinism, therefore Bob is wrong thinking Adrian Rogers was a 2-point Calvinist.
REPLY:
Rogers believed in the depravity of man and he believed in the preservation of the believer.
The fact that he did not define these are self-styled 'Reformed' pedo-regenerationists define them means about as much as the pedos' idea that infants are "regenerated" before birth.
HUGHEY:
It appears as though both of you have chosen to ignore the clear statement in the 2000 BF&M that faith is a response to regeneration and both of you have also rejected the clear text of Holy Scripture as follows (emphasis is mine),
REPLY:
We are ignoring nothing, for the BF&M plainly says that there is "no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord," and it says "salvation includes regeneration" -- therefore, if salvation includes regeneration and if there is no salvation apart from faith, then there is no regeneration apart from faith.
HUGHEY:
In addition to this, Bob Ross deliberately misrepresents those at Founders Ministries (as well as many Reformed Baptists) as pedobaptists.
REPLY:
This is false. What I have contended, and still contend, that the view advocated by some Founders on regeneration is the same view as advocated by the pedo-regenerationists such as Shedd, Berkhof, and Sproul. It is regeneration by a "direct operation" and has one "born again before faith," therefore without faith in Jesus Christ. This is the view advocated by Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology, a book accepted and promoted by the Founders, and even quoted on regeneration.
HUGHEY:
If this is what Bob Ross truly believes, then he (and you I assume) believe ALL infants are doomed to eternity in Hell because they receive no ‘Direct Operation’ of the Spirit. Do you or Bob Ross believe these infants can have salvation apart from exercising ‘faith’ which, in your view, always precludes Regeneration?
REPLY:
We have commented on this matter, and my view is that infants are born again whenever they have the knowledge of Jesus Christ communicated to them by whatever method God uses. No, they are not regenerated by a "direct operation" apart from means of communicating the knowledge of Christ, for God always uses means to communicate truth and create faith. God "calls" no one except by the use of some means. See Puritan Stephen Charnock's presentation on Regeneration on the Internet wherein he shows that God ALWAYS uses means.
HUGHEY:
Bob Ross stated, While some few in the past may have broadly used the term "regeneration" to include the pre-faith influence of the Holy Spirit, it is obvious that they never intended to affirm that one is "born again" before faith, but that the initial internal influence of the Holy Spirit was at the most only a preparatory influence to the creation of the faith which is the new birth (1 John 5:4). It's interesting how Bob makes these statements about 'some' who are never mentioned or identified!
REPLY:
You can find reference to some of these in Berkhof's Theology, chapter six, wherein he expresses his disagreement with those who use "regeneration" in the broad sense, confessing thereby that he departs from the 17th century Puritans, Luther, Calvin, and even the Westminster Confession itself. He uses as his "excuse" the idea that the shibboleth known as the "ordo salutis" had not been "fully developed at it is today."
HUGHEY:
To begin with, 1 John 5:4 is completely void of any reference to what Bob Ross is claiming.
REPLY:
The passage demonstrates that FAITH is that which is born of God, and overcomes the world. The one who overcomes the world is the one in whom faith has been born. Therefore, no one is born again who has not had faith born in him.
Now, here is C. H. Spurgeon's Immaculate Syllogism, which is based on 1 John 5:4. This is on page 142 of Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 17, 1971, Sermon #979, "Faith and Regeneration."
1. "Whatsoever is BORN OF GOD overcometh the world."
2. But FAITH overcomes the world.
3. Therefore, the man who has FAITH is REGENERATE.
There is no way to squeeze a "born again before faith" situation into that syllogism!
FAITH is that which is BORN OF GOD and "overcomes," therefore the REGENERATED man is the only man who has FAITH -- and NO OTHER! The man with FAITH is the only REGENERATED man -- and NO OTHER!
HUGHEY:
And you call Calvinists heretics!!!
REPLY:
No, we have demonstrated that Hybrid Calvnism is not Creedal Calvinism, and we do call Hybrid Calvinists heretics. -- Bob L. Ross
Post a Comment
<< Home