Tuesday, April 25, 2006

History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists, chapter 2

Here is chapter two of the series on Hardshell Baptists by Brother Bob Ross.

Charles

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Pilgrimpub@aol.com
Subject: #2 -- HARDSHELLISM: WHICH FACTION? [04/24--2006]
HISTORY AND HERESIES OF HARDSHELLISM, #2 [04/24--2006]

Chapter Two:

WHICH PRIMITIVE BAPTIST FACTION IS THE "ORIGINAL CHURCH"?

The "Hardshells" Developed in the Midst of Controversy and Turmoil, and Have Continued to War, Split, and Factionalize.

Whenever a writer sets forth an unsympathetic treatment of a religious group, it is highly unlikely that he will be applauded by the affiliates of that group as having been fair, honest, and objective. Shortly after I published my first introductory article on the "Hardshells," I immediately began to be informed by some of these "sweet brethren" ["sweet" is the most common adjective used in relation to all Hardshell items] that I am ignorant, dishonest, misled, a free-willer, unobjective, a vehement persecutor, writing for personal gain, and similar accolades.

But I have gone through all of this type of response in the past from Campbellites, and this is only to be expected, especially when you are dealing with an extremely factionalized movement which is torn asunder by differences within.

Years ago, in the early 1960's, when I began to write on my little book, History and Heresies of Campbellism, I was greeted with the same type of response. One Campbellite faction did not agree with something I presented, as the source used was allegedly "not sound in the faith;" -- meaning, the source was from another Campbellite faction. I found that there were so many factions it would have been impossible to please them all.

Later on, in the mid-1960's, when I started doing some writing on Landmarkism, one faction did not want to accept what I had quoted from another faction. I had allegedly used an "unsound" source. It seemed that each individual party wanted me to refrain from saying anything, unless I could present it exactly from his perspective.

This characteristic seems to be of the nature of those who are given to the type of exclusivism, patternism, and sectarianism of the cultic mentality.

Primitive Baptist Divisions

After the Baptist denomination began to be influenced to extend its efforts of Gospel ministry beyond the English-speaking countries of England and America, in the late 1700's and early 1800's there was opposition from some in the denomination, especially targeting ministers such as Andrew Fuller, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, and Luther Rice. If you favored the efforts of these men to reach the unregenerate with the Gospel, you were depicted by their enemies as one who supported the work of the Devil. If you have the "stomach" for reading material which degrades the "missionaries," just get any of the "Old School" or "Primitive Baptist" magazines and books of the 1800's and you will be in "hog heaven."

For several years, in the 1820's and 1830's especially, the common bond of "anti-missionism" seemed to be the great essential that held the Hardshells together. As long as they were "shooting down" the innovators and the newfangled "inventions," they didn't have a lot of time and thought left for fomenting strife and division among themselves.

In due time, however, after the "dust had settled" from the various splits, with the churches and associations aligned with either the "New School" (missionaries) or the "Old School" (anti-missionaries) the spirit of divisiveness began to rip and tear the flesh of the Old Schoolers.

The same thing was happening in the Campbellite movement as well. After the union of the Barton W. Stone "Christian" movement with "Disciples" movement led by Alexander Campbell in the year 1832, the succeeding years have witnessed continual strife and division over various issues within this self-styled "Restoration Movement." As of today, the controversies and splintering continue to thrive. It seems that most of these wars derive from issues created by the ministers who edit "journals" and those who are promoters of "lectureships."

Taking a broad view of the strife and division among the Hardshells, it is apparent from their associational minutes, magazines, and other writings that certain of the preachers, editors, and associational moderators have been at the root of such turmoil. Some Hardshells have been known to have had "Peace Meetings" [Nashville; Donaldson] as a means of trying to settle their differences. The Hardshell "associations" in some areas are infamous for some of the fued'n, fuss'n, and fight'n that they have carried on over various and sundry issues. In Alabama, for example, a couple of the more famous disputes were the George F. Ballew--DeForest Allgood dispute and the Ballew--J. C. Shelton issue, both in the latter 1800's, as presented in A History of Primitive Baptists in Alabama by E. B. Watts. The issue of "predestination" has been the occasion of the unending strife across Primitive Baptist territory and it continues to this day.

During the career of Claud Cayce as editor of The Primitive Baptist magazine, there seemed to be "one-thing-after-another" by way of controversy coming to light on the pages of his journal. For example, there was a great deal of heat generated over what was called the "whole man doctrine" and the "hollow log doctrine." Cayce referred to the controversy as "an unholy war" (9/5/16 TPB).

In more recent times (1973-1975), there was an example of Hardshell bickering over what was called "the devil doctrine." This was in the Powell Valley Association (East Tennessee-Kentucky). The Powell Valley Association's ministerial overlords would not tolerate the view of one of the ministers, and consequently "bars of fellowship" were erected, which is a common practice among some of the Hardshell factions.

In very recent years, even Lassere Bradley, Jr., the celebrated proselyte from the missionary Baptists in the late 1950s, has been put on the grill by some of the more strict Hardshells. There are also reports that Bradley has been having "fellowship" with some of the Southern Baptist theological leaders in Kentucky who are among the "born again before faith" element. Bradley is reportedly "well-heeled" financially, and he may be needed to support those SBC leaders if they continue to follow the downgrade toward Hardshellism.

Such happenings as this are mainly due to the strong emphasis the Hardshells place on "patternism," an attribute which is also found among the more sectarian Campbellites and the Landmark Baptists.

In fact, Elder S. T. Tolley of The Christian Baptist magazine even uses the same terminology of the Campbellites on this "patternism." In his paper of May 1992, page 5, Tolley refers to "direct command, scriptural example, and necessary inference" -- the very same identical "hermeneutic" which was set forth by Thomas Campbell when he launched his "Christian union" movement which ultimately brought about the so-called "Restoration Movement."

Tolley also has borrowed Campbell's slogan, "We speak where the Bible speaks, and we are silent where the Bible is silent" (May 1969, page 1). Tolley claims this is a "very old expression which the Baptist family has made use of," but to our knowledge, it was hatched by Thomas Campbell. For years I have refuted this claim to an infallibility similar to papal infallibility, and Campbellite debaters have been unable to justify it. Contrary to Tolley, Baptists HAVE NOT been the propagators of such rank nonsense as this slogan sets forth. [For a refutation of the slogan, see my book on Campbellism--Its History and Heresies, pages 168, 169].

Three Major Primitive Baptist Divisions

THE THREE PRIMARY DIVISIONS among Primitive Baptists -- all of which teach that sinners are "born again before faith," that "regeneration precedes faith," the same idea propagated by the pedo-regenerationists and hybrid Calvinists of our time -- are:

(1) THE "ABSOLUTERS," including the successors of Gilbert Beebe and his Signs of the Times,

(2) THE "CONDITIONALISTS," represented in part by the heirs of Claud Cayce, and --

(3) THE PROGRESSIVES, a faction which has Sunday Schools and some other "innovations." Hybrid Calvinist James White has preached for this group. Presumably, they agree with White's teaching of "regeneration precedes faith."

There are other Primitive Baptists, however, which do not affiliate with these three categories. I have heard from some along the eastern seaboard who repudiate all ties with these factions or groups, except maybe on some points of doctrine. [For a concise delineation of various "Primitive Baptists," see the May 1971, Volume XLII, No. 5 issue of Concordia Theological Monthly, The Primitive Baptists of North America by A. C. Piepkorn, page 297-314 -- published by Concordia Publishing House, 3558 S. Jefferson Ave., St. Louis, Mo.]

It seems only fitting, or perhaps paradoxical, that predestination, which was used effectively by Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881), Samuel Trott (1783-1866), and Joshua Lawrence (1778-1843) to bash the missions' cause, should later become the primary "bone of contention" within the Hardshell brotherhood. From the "Conditionalist" faction's point of view, most of the blame for the controversy must fall upon the shoulders of Mr. Beebe who, according to Hardshell historian J. S. Newman, wrote "the first article that was ever put forth by the Baptists purporting to be Old Baptist doctrine that contained universal predestination," and the article appeared in Beebe's Editorials, Vol. 1, p. 7 [The Baptists in all Ages by J. S. Newman, pages 126, 127].

Within the Hardshell ranks, Elder Newman may be right in his assertion; he also asserts that Daniel Parker (1781-1844) introduced "Two Seedism" among the Primitive Baptists. While "Two Seedism" never secured an extensive following in Hardshell ranks, it has certainly made its "dent" in creating wide disturbances, and frequent references are made to "Two-Seeders" and "Two-Seedism" in Hardshell histories, minutes, and writings. Dr. John H. Watson (1798-1866), in particular, took the "Manicheo Parkerite Heresy" to task in his book, The Old Baptist Test (pages 243-342). To the discomfort of modern Hardshells, Dr. Watson attributes blame to Parkerism for the opposition to "means" that became "part and parcel" of the "Hardshell" image across the country.

"Direct Voice" Regeneration Theory

While Hardshells such as the Cayces (S. F. and Claud H.) swung away from Parker on "Two-Seedism" and Beebe on "absolutism," it seems that all Hardshellism was successfully inoculated against missions to the unregenerate by Beebe's novel theory of DIRECT VOICE or DIRECT SPEAKING REGENERATION. From my own research, I have no doubt that J. S. Newman could have truthfully asserted that GILBERT BEEBE was the FIRST to spawn this theory among the anti-mission movement.

Dr. John Gill (1697-1771), who was called "the soundest, the most learned, and the most able Baptist theologian since the death of the Apostle John -- the author of a complete critical Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, and a Complete Body of Divinity--the only man that ever hunted and drove out Arminianism from the explanation of every verse in the Bible, from the beginning of Genesis" [Hassell's History of the Church of God, page 651], was already "on record" as expounding John 5:25 ("the dead shall hear the VOICE of the Son of God") as being "HIS GOSPEL, which is a voice of love, grace, and mercy, of life and liberty, of peace, pardon, righteousness, salvation by him; and which being attended with his power, is THE MEANS OF QUICKENING DEAD SINNERS: who may be said to hear it, when it comes not in word only, but in power, and works effectually in them; and is spirit and life, and the power of God unto salvation to them; when they receive it, understand, believe and obey it: and such persons shall live; comfortably, pleasantly, and delightfully, a life of faith in Christ, a life of communion with him, and shall live eternally with him hereafter." [Gill's Commentary on John 5:25].

While the Hardshells take a liking to Dr. Gill in his anti-Arminianism, they part company with him in his "Calvinism." Contrary to a popular misconception, the larger percentage of Primitive Baptists are not Calvinists, neither on predestination nor effectual calling. The "Conditionalists" limit predestination to the matter of "eternal salvation," and they believe in calling apart from "means." They teach what they call "time salvation" which "only you can do and God is not going to do that salvation for you" [Frank Buttrey, For the Poor magazine, May 1992, page 69].

This "time salvation" has to do with life after the new birth; many Hardshells apply all commands to this "time salvation," as their "logic" dictates the Pelagian philosophy that "command implies ability," therefore the commands "must" be addressed to the "living." I will have more to say on this in subsequent material.

Dr. Gill was "set aside" as a "contradictory witness" by the Hardshell debater John R. Daily in his debate with W. P. Throgmorton. To his own way of thinking, Daily considered Gill contradictory in what Gill says in his Body of Divinity when compared to the Gill Commentary. Had Daily simply left it at that -- alleging what he himself considered to be a "contradiction" -- it would at least have been an honest appraisal, although erroneous on Daily's part; however, Daily concocted the bemeaning notion that Gill wrote the Commentary when he was immature ["Was it written when he was a boy and didn't know?" Daily asks in relation to the Body of Divinity. "By no means," says Daily, implying immaturity in Gill when he wrote the Commentary.] Daily attributes the Body of Divinity to Gill's "mature years." But the fact is, the only "contradiction" is in Daily's mind, not in Dr. John Gill! The Calvinist sees no contradiction, as Calvinism affirms with Dr. Gill that the sole efficient power in regeneration is the Holy Spirit (not the means themselves), but in doing His supernatural work, means are instrumentally used.

For example, the Bible was inspired by the efficient power of the Holy Spirit of God, yet every word of it was instrumentally penned by men. The Spirit used "means," therefore, to give us the inspired Word of God. The use of men as the instrumental "means" does not mean that the efficient power was of men. This might appear to be a contradiction according to the logic of men such as Daily who see contradictions in Dr. Gill, but in such minds the contradiction was born and died. [For Elder Daily's remarks, see the Daily-Throgmorton DEBATE, pages 240-243].

In the course of these chapters, it will be noted, Hardshells have no Baptist writings prior to the 1800's which affirm the type of doctrine they believe as to the New Birth, Effectual Calling, the Work of the Holy Spirit, and the "Place of the Gospel," or the Truth, in relation to the Spirit's work. Particular notice will be taken of how the Hardshells have tampered with the old London Confession of 1689 and have openly repudiated many of its teachings, especially concerning Effectual Calling.

I have one Hardshell book, written by Elder Lee Hanks, entitled The Church of God; it is a reprint edition by the Christian Baptist Publishing Company of the "Conditionalist" faction. This reprint edition contains a reproduction of the London Confession to which a "hatchet-job"> was done by way of making OMISSIONS. Also, I have before me a copy of the 1900 "footnoted" edition of the London Confession, which was the concoction of an assembly of "Conditionalist" Hardshell divines which met in Fulton, Kentucky. The obvious purpose of the "footnoting" by these Hardshells was to "explain away" the points in the London Confession which the Hardshells did not really believe.

Nothing is more contradictory to the Hardshell claim of being the "original" Baptists than the unseemly torture work they have enacted upon the London Confession of 1689. In material to follow, their disgrace will be thoroughly documented, and there will be no room for doubt that their claim of being the "Primitive Baptists" is farcical and spurious.
________________________

Chapter previously published:

#1 -- "Hardshellism" - A Modern Cult

30 Comments:

At Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:49:00 AM, Anonymous Chuckette said...

HEY BOB, I'M A BLOGGIN' BOY

Well life on the blog is kinda laid back
Ain't much an ol' Chucky boy like me cain't hack
Early to rise, late in the sack
Hey Bob, I'm a bloggin' boy

Well a simple kinda life is all I know
A huntin' with my dawg an' blogs on the go
When I don't say nuthin', jus' go with the flow
Say Bob, I’m a bloggin' boy

I don't got me a wife but I got me a fiddle
An' I eat my viddles straight off of the griddle
Life ain’t nothin’ but a blogospheric riddle
See Bob, I’m a bloggin' boy

When my swattin's all done and the sun's settlin' low
I think of tomorrow's blogs and draw out the bow
I just cain't help it, oh don't you know
Look Bob, I'm a bloggin' boy

Why I’d play truant all day if I could
But that just wouldn’t be terribly good
So I study when I can and blog when I should
Yo Bob, I'm a bloggin' boy

I don't got me a wife but I got me a fiddle
An' I eat my viddles straight off of the griddle
Life ain’t nothin’ but a blogospheric riddle
See Bob, I’m a bloggin' boy

Well I wouldn’t trade my blog for no crown jewels
No matter what they say they all a buncha fools
I'd rather have my blog and Rafferty's rules
Yessir Bob, I'm a bloggin' boy

I don't have a chevy or a black limousine
For it's only on bloggin' that I'm dead set keen
If you're like me son, you'll know exactly what I mean
No mistake Bob, I'm a bloggin' boy

I don't got me a wife but I got me a fiddle
An' I eat my viddles straight off of the griddle
Life ain’t nothin’ but a blogospheric riddle
See Bob, I’m a bloggin' boy

Well, I'll keep on bloggin' till morn' is nigh
The day I give it up will be the day I die
I wonder if they blog in the sweet bye and bye
Tell you Bob, I'm a bloggin' boy

My daddy taught me how to hunt and how to whittle
Tho' he didn't teach me how to blog even but a little
Learned that by myself and now I run outta spittle
Sure nuff Bob, I'm a bloggin' boy

I don't got me a wife but I got me a fiddle
An' I eat my viddles straight off of the griddle
Life ain’t nothin’ but a blogospheric riddle
Yee hah! Bob, I’m a bloggin' boy
Yee hah! Bob, I’m a bloggin' boy

Chuckette

 
At Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:27:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

FORMER HARDSHELL PREACHER -- AND SON OF CURRENT HARDSHELL PREACHER -- POSTING "HARDSHELL" SERIES ON HIS WEBSITE

Bob to Charles


Charles, one of my longtime friends who is a former Hardshell Baptist preacher is also using my articles on his website.

I helped ordain his father to the ministry, but he fell under the influence of Lassere Bradley Jr. and went over to the Hardshells. A recent report of the financially well-heeled Bradley's visiting and "fellowshipping" with leaders at Southern Seminary does not bode well for Southern Baptists. This could be another indication of the direction in which the Seminary is heading -- down Hardshell Boulevard.

http://www.deardiary.net/show/diary.pl/132390/1145664000

The following from Stephen Garrett's website (above link) is self-explantory:

STEPEHN GARRETT said:

Bob Ross, a dear and precious preacher friend, has written some articles over the years on Hardshellism.

My Dad and Bob used to be in close fellowship, back in the 60's, being the same age and both loving the teachings of Sovereign Grace and Baptist Theology.

Dad later left the Sovereign Grace Baptists and went to the "Primitive Baptists," or "Hardshells."

I was not raised with Dad from the age of eight. I got saved in a Missionary Baptist Church when I was in my early teens. Later, though, before I was baptized, I had discussions with Dad relative to what the Bible teaches about salvation.

The result was that I was convinced of Calvinism and Sovereign Grace. I was baptized into the "Primitive Baptist Church" in the summer of 1972. I soon began to teach and preach among them and was first ordained in the year 1974.

I travelled far among the Primitive Baptists and was quite a novelty, being such a young preacher. I got to spend lots of time with their preachers, including those who were looked upon as being the greater leaders with the greater influence among the denomination. I also had regular preaching appointments in their churches and also pastored a couple. I became very well read in their doctrines, particularly their aberrant views on the new birth, regeneration, or conversion.

But, I accepted and defended the regeneration before faith view, the one that Brother Bob Ross shows is the chief error of this sect. But, thankfully, by the providence of God, I was led to see the error of this view, and turned from it, together with a few other leading teachings of the sect.

Brother Ross had me out to Texas in the early nineties to do a video taping of a documentary on Hardshellism. It can be purchased from him at Pilgrim Publications, I believe. Anyway, we spent about a week together discussing Hardshellism and my departure from them.

He began to write a series of articles (chapters) on the subject. He has written numerous books on issues that are of interest to Christians in general, but especially to Baptists.

Anyway, I plan to post his writings as he sends them to me via his e-mail list of subscribers (if you want on it, please contact him). I will also be making comments about each chapter.

The first chapter concerns several Hardshell preachers I know very well, including my Dad. I preached several times in the Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church and was a guest of Lasserre Bradley.

So, here is his first chapter, a good one, and personal to me. Let me know what you all think, you who read, are Christian, and care to comment.



ANNOUNCING -- A SERIES ON "THE HISTORY
AND HERESIES OF HARDSHELLISM" [04/21--2006]
etc.

Stephen's website is at -- http://www.deardiary.net/show/diary.pl/132390/1145664000

 
At Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:53:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

HARDSHELLS, CAMPBELLITES, AND HYBRID CALVINISTS
DENY THE CREATIVE POWER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Bob to Charles:


The position advocated by the above groups involves a denial that the Word of God has creative power.

This is according to the view of the pedo-regenerationists scholars, Dr. W. G. T. Shedd and Louis Berkhof. (See Shedd's Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 2, page 500; Berkhof's Systematic Theology, pages 574, 575).

Pedobaptists theologians are usually not really good sources for truth on the new birth, for the fact is, they get most of their church members through a supposed "regeneration" that took place when those person were babies. Consequently, they have a very poor grasp of what is taught in the Bible on the subject of the new birth. If they believe the superstition that infants are "regenerated" when they are still in diapers, they cannot be depended upon to know very much about this subject.

Dr. Berkhof quotes from and agrees with Dr. Shedd, and says that the Word of God, or the Gospel, "has no effect on the dead."

Berkhof says that the Word "does not operate creatively" (page 472).

Dr. Shedd, Berkhof's "authority," claims that regeneration takes place without "any instrument or means whatever," that regeneration is "independent of even the word itself," is "not effected by the use of means," and that the Holy Spirit "must operate directly, without the use of means or instruments" (Volume 2, pages 500-509.)

Shedd shrugs of some of the verses which are "sometimes used to prove" that the Word is involved as a necessary means or instrument in regeneration, such as James 1:18, Ephesians 1:13, Colossians 1:5, and 1 Peter 1:23. Shedd correctly says men are "born again of incorruptible seed, namely of the Holy Spirit" and quotes the Revised Version, "Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, buf of incorruptible, through the word of God," but he seems totally unmoved by the latter part of 1 Peter 1:23. That part of the verse says it is "through (dia) the Word of God" that this begetting "of (ek) the Spirit" is accomplished -- "Born OF the Spirit, THROUGH the Word of God."

Essentially, the Shedd-Berkhof view is the same view the Campbellites take about the role of the Word in the new birth, for they both deny that the Spirit of God brings about the new birth by creating faith in Christ through the Word as it is empowered by the Holy Spirit. In both cases, the Word is a "dead letter" as to having a part to play in effecting the new birth.

Harrdshells, pedo-regenerationists, and Hybrid Calvinists who share the same view as Shedd and Berkhof are therefore in agreement with the Campbellite view when they advocate the idea of "regeneration precedes faith," or "born again before faith." All of them deny the creative, begetting power of the Word of God, which according to Scripture is that instrument by which the Holy Spirit "quickens," or makes alive (John 6:63).

Jesus taught that the Word of God was that which "quickens," for the Spirit goes with and in that Word (John 6:63). Creedal Calvinists such as C. H. Spurgeon taught that the Word "quickens." Spurgeon often referred to the "quickening Word."

Campbellites deny that the Word quickens the dead sinner and brings him to believe in Christ, and so do those who teach that "regeneration" takes places before faith. The view of James White, Scott Morgan, Tom Schreiner, and others who share their view hold with the Campbellites that the Word does not quicken unto life. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:20:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob, Hello!

I cannot express in words how important this series is to Baptists today. Bob, you are doing us a great service.

Baptist Press outlets have reported that baptisms are down in the SBC. With the faculty at Southern Seminary promoting the Hardshell doctrine of "born again before faith" I wonder if that may be part of the reason for the low baptisms? As the graduates of Southern move into churches it seems that this would have a deadening effect on the SBC as a whole.

Also, is Hardshell the same as Primitive? Where did the term "Hardshell" originate?

Charles

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:34:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

HARDSHELL DOCTRINE IS FATAL
TO MISSIONS AND EVANGELISM

Charles said...


Baptist Press outlets have reported that baptisms are down in the SBC. With the faculty at Southern Seminary promoting the Hardshell doctrine of "born again before faith" I wonder if that may be part of the reason for the low baptisms? As the graduates of Southern move into churches it seems that this would have a deadening effect on the SBC as a whole.

Also, is Hardshell the same as Primitive? Where did the term "Hardshell" originate?


BOB'S COMMENT:

I think your reasonsing is probably correct about the decline of baptisms. Despite the book of Acts which records thousands upon thousands of converts, Hybrids are known to downplay "numbers" and associate numerical growth as being "decisional regeneration," false evangelism, etc.

Hardshell churches seem to get most of their members from proselytism, other than from their own families. They never do any evangelism to the unregenerate.

They called themselves "Primitive" because they claim they are the "original" Baptists in faith and practice, in contrast to the "missonaries" involved in the split which took place in the 1820-1830 period when the "missionaries" were creating "innovations." I will be discussing this in one of my chapters.

I think "Hardshell" was used of them because they were so "hardheaded" in their attitudes. Like the "hardshell" hickory nut -- difficult to crack. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:58:00 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Bob and Charles,

First, to Bob: After reading John Gill on Regeneration, Effectual Calling, and Conversion it became clear to me once again on how you totally misrepresent Gill, Spurgeon, and our Calvinistic Baptist Confessions on Regeneration. Gill is so clear that he even puts Regeneration seperate from Conversion.
Also, how you like to paint a picture that I and some others believe that a man is regenerated for great lengths of time before he is converted is a real shame on your part. Gill, Spurgeon and our Calvinistic Baptist Confessions clearly show( Regeneration precedes Saving Faith) this but you continue to disagree and I have no problem that you do. I do have a problem that you are lying and trying to say that we believe a man is regenerated at long lengths of time before his conversion. I do not believe that however, I do believe a man is regenerated first then he is immediately converted. They both seem to be one but conversion flows out of regeneration. Again, we can differ but please don't paint me as believing that men are regenerated and walk around at great lengths of time before they are converted. I will try not to misrepresent you either.
Bob, also if you are truly a " Confessional Calvinist" then you ought to be thrilled with Southern Seminary where they teach ( Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Particular Atonement, Effectual Calling, and Perseverance of the Saints)as what the first 293 SBC delegates believed when are convention formed in 1845. Do you believe the 1644,1689,NHC, and Philadelphia on the wording in their confession on these doctrines?
Charles, do you support these doctrines in the 1644, 1689 , and NHC? Please let us know? Do you agree with Bob on Joel Osteen? Do you hold Joel Osteen up has one of your favorite preachers?
Lets see will you guys answer my question or will we hear Bob say " Your not going to get me off the Regeneration trail". I forgot that Bob finds it hard to find time to answer the simple question that would clearly show all your blog readers what you really believe about the five points.

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1:38:00 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Charles,

You mentioned the " Baptism Issue among Southern Graduates". You are hinting that Southern graduates don't share the gospel or have a passion for the lost? Let me set you straight on some things:
1. For the last 80-85yrs the SBC has been majority of noncalvinist in the pulpits.
2. Bobby Welch SBC president( Baptisms are at a all time low since 93).
3. Divorce rate high with SBC pastors and laymen.
4. Low return of graduating highschool seniors back to church.
5. Big loss of SBC membership to Charsmatic churches( Bob Ross does not help in this area).
6. 99% of SBC membership can't explain Baptist Faith and Message.


Who has and what theology has been in the SBC pulpits the last 80-85yrs? We both no the answer!

At least the Southern graduates will strongly preach the pure gospel and disciple people and teach them biblical evangelism. Also they will understand the meaning of a shepherd and give teenagers doctrine instead of a summer schedule of pizza parties and fun trips. They will practice church discipline and teach fathers how to lead nightly family worship time and last they will teach the church on what a confession of faith is! You can't stop this work of God that He is doing at Southern through Al Mohler and Tom Nettles and Founders. The younger SBC have seen how your pulpits have let deacons run churches and give cars and money away to get people to come to church.

Thank God for Al Mohler, Southern, Founders, James White !

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 4:40:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

DR. GILL REFUTES HARDSHELL DOCTRINE OF SCOTT MORGAN

Scott said...


Bob and Charles,

First, to Bob: After reading John Gill on Regeneration, Effectual Calling, and Conversion it became clear to me once again on how you totally misrepresent Gill, Spurgeon, and our Calvinistic Baptist Confessions on Regeneration.


Your reading of Dr. Gill is very deficient -- probably worse than some of the Hardshells who admit that Gill was not of their faith and order, as my "Hardshell" series will reveal. I am more impressed by the density of your mental powers with each comment you make.

It will be seen from the following quotations that Gill, and the Baptists of his time, were not of the "regeneration before faith" camp.

He uses both "regeneration" and "conversion" in referring to the new birth, not to two distinct experiences.

From Gill's Commentary

Romans 1:16:
It (the gospel) is the power of God organically or instrumentally; as it is a means made use of by God in QUICKENING DEAD sinners, enlightening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, softening hard hearts, and making of enemies friends (Volume 6, pages 5, 6).

Romans 10:17:
'So then faith cometh by hearing' & c. That is, by preaching; for the word hearing is used in the same sense as in the preceding verse; and designs the report of the Gospel, or the preaching of the word, which is the means God makes use of to convey faith into the hearts of his people; for preachers are ministers, or instruments, by whom others believe (Vol. 6, p. 9).

I Corinthians 1:18:
'It (the Gospel) is the power of God;' organically or instrumentally; it being the means of QUICKENING them WHEN DEAD dead in sin, of enlightening their dark minds, or unstopping their deaf ears, of softening their hard hearts, and of enemies making them friends to God, Christ, and his people:

I Corinthians 4:15:
'For in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the Gospel;' which is to be understood of regeneration, a being born again, and from above; of being QUICKENED WHEN DEAD in trespasses and sins; of having Christ formed in the soul; of being made a partaker of the Divine nature, and a new creature: . . .

And it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry, which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion; and which were brought about 'through the Gospel;' . . . through the preaching the Gospel; in and through which, as a vehicle, the Spirit of God conveys himself into the heart, as a Spirit of regeneration and faith; and God of his own will and rich mercy, by the word of truth, by the Gospel of grace and truth, which came by Christ, so called in distinction from the law which came by Moses, BEGETS US again as his new creatures; which shows the usefulness of the Gospel ministry, and in what account Gospel ministers are to be had, who are SPIRTUAL FATHERS, or the instruments of the conversion of men (Volume 6, page 174).

I Corinthians 1:21:
This (preaching), through efficacious grace, becomes the means of regenerating and quickening men, showing them their need of salvation, and where it is, and of working faith in them to look to Christ for it (Vol. 6, p. 156).

I Corinthians 4:20:
Gill says that the "power" spoken of in this verse has reference to "the powerful efficacy of the Spirit, attending the preaching of the Gospel to the QUICKENING OF DEAD sinners, the enlightening of blind eyes, and unstopping of deaf ears; the softening of hard hearts, the delivering of persons from the slavery of sin and Satan, the transforming and renewing of them both inwardly and outwardly (Vol. 6, p. 176).

I Corinthians 9:22:
'That I might by all means save some;' that is, that he might be the means of saving some of Jews and Gentiles, and of all sorts of men; by preaching the Gospel of salvation to them, and by directing them to Christ, the only Saviour of lost sinners; thus he explains what he means by so often saying that he might 'gain' them (Volume 6, page 208).

I Corinthians 15:2:
It (the Gospel) was the means of their salvation, and had been made the power of God unto salvation to them. Salvation is inseparably connected with true FAITH in Christ as a Saviour, etc. (Volume 6, page 255).

II Corinthians 3:6:
It (the Gospel) is a means in the hand of the Spirit of God, of QUICKENING DEAD sinners, of healing the deadly wounds of sin, of showing the way of life by Christ, and of working faith in the soul, to look to him, and live upon him; etc. (Vol. 6, p. 293).

Galatians 4:13:
'I preached the Gospel unto you at the first;' not the law, but the Gospel; and this he did at his first entrance among them, and was the first that preached it to them; and was the means of their conversion: and therefore, being their spiritual father, they ought to be as he was, and follow him as they had for an example (Volume 6, page 394).

James 1:18:
Gill says that "the Word of truth" of this passage means "The Gospel, which is the word of truth, and truth itself, and contains nothing but truth; and by this souls are BEGOTTEN and BORN AGAIN; see Eph. 1:13, I Pet. 1:23; and hence ministers of it are accounted spiritual fathers. FAITH, and every other grace in regeneration, and even the Spirit himself, the Regenerator, come this way (Volume 6, page 783).

I Peter 1:23:
Gill says that "the word of God" of this verse is "the Gospel, the word of truth, which is made use of as a means of BEGETTING souls again (Volume 6, page 783).
From Other Works

On page 372 of Gill's Body of Divinity, in his discussion of the Gospel, the third point of his outline is, "The effects of the gospel when attended with the power and Spirit of God." Under this point, Gill says:

1. The regeneration of men, who are said to be born again by the word of God, and to be begotten again with the word of truth, I Pet. 1:23, James 1:18; hence ministers of the gospel are represented as spiritual fathers, I Cor. 4:15.

2. As in regeneration, souls are QUICKENEDquickened by the Spirit and grace of God, this is ASCRIBED TO THE GOSPEL as an instrument, hence it is called the Spirit which giveth like, and said to be the saviour of life unto life, 2 Cor. 2:16 and 3:6.

3. The GOSPEL is frequently spoken of as a light, a great light, a glorious light; and so is in the hands of the Spirit a means of enlightening the dark minds of men into the mysteries of grace, and the method of salvation; 'the entrance of thy word giveth light, it giveth understanding unto the simple,' Psalm 119:130. The Spirit of God gives the gospel an entrance into the heart, being opened by him to attend unto it; and when it has an entrance, it gives light into a man's self, his state and condition, and into the way of life by Christ; it is a glass in which the glory of Christ, and of the riches of his grace, may be seen.

In his discussion of effectual calling (Body of Divinity, page 539), Gill clearly states that the ministry of the Word and the call by it "have to do with unregenerate sinners." He explains this is as follows:

They may, and should be called upon to attend the outward means of grace, and to make use of them; to read the holy scriptures, which have been the means of conversion of some; to hear the word, and wait on the ministry of it, which may be blessed unto them, for the effectual calling of them.

In this article, on page 931, Gill makes this strong statement as to the ministry of the Word:

2. The ministry of the word is for the conversion of sinners; without which churches would not be increased nor supported, and must in course fail, and come to nothing: but the hand of the Lord being with his ministers, many in every age believe and turn to the Lord, and are added to the churches; by which means they are kept up and preserved: and hence it is necessary in the ministers of the word, to set forth the lost and miserable estate and condition of men by nature, the danger they are in, the necessity of regeneration and repentance, and of a better righteousness than their own, and of faith in Christ; which things are blessed for the turning of men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.

On pages 533 and 534 of his Body of Divinity, this mighty writer, dealing with the subject of regeneration, says:

Fourthly, The instrumental CAUDE of regeneration, if it may be so called, are the WORD of God, and the ministers of it; hence regenerate persons are said to be 'born again by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever,' I Pet. 1:23; and again, 'of his own will begat he us with the word of truth,' Jam. 1:18 . . . ministers of the gospel are not only represented as ministers and instruments by whom others believe, but as spiritual fathers; 'though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ,' says the apostle to the Corinthians, I Cor. 4:15, 'yet have ye not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.'

This refutes the Hardshell distinction between "regeneration" and "conversion." Gill's view makes BOTH terms apply to the "new birth." I will have some more from Dr. Gill for you in due time. In the meantime, you can chew and choke on the foregoing.

Again, Scott, I exhort you to go to your "sweet home" -- the "Old Baptists," as they call themselves. You are are Hardshell throug and through. As deep in Hardshell doctrine as Lassere Bradley Jr. himself.-- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 4:49:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L.Ross said...

SCOTT'S COMPLAINT

Scott said...


Bob and Charles,

Also, how you like to paint a picture that I and some others believe that a man is regenerated for great lengths of time before he is converted is a real shame on your part.


Both Shedd and Berkhof have been quoted as believing that infants are "regenerated" before they are even able to believe, and that their "faith" -- if they ever have any -- supposedly will come later in life.

This is the theology promoted by R. C. Sproul and the Founders, and Sproul is promoted by the Founders and the Southern Seminary. You are part of the Founders, and Berkhof's theology and Sproul are promoted by them. Have you objected to the Founders for promoting a theology on regeneration which you here say you do not believe? If not, why not? What are you silent on the matter? -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 5:05:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

CHARISMATIC?

Scott said...


5. Big loss of SBC membership to Charsmatic churches( Bob Ross does not help in this area).

When did Bob Ross assist charismatic churches?

If you have in mind the fact I enjoy hearing Joel Osteen, I have never heard Joel say anything that involved the charismatic doctrine and practice. Do you know something that I don't know? -- Bob Ross

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 5:18:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L Ross said...

SCOTT INCLUDED!

Scott said...


6. 99% of SBC membership can't explain Baptist Faith and Message.

That percentage includes Scott Morgan, Gene Bridges, and all others who think the BF&M teaches the Hardshell doctrine of "regeneration before faith." -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:40:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

BOB TO CHARLES: This is the corrected version you said I could re-submit:
_________________

HARDSHELLS, CAMPBELLITES, AND HYBRID CALVINISTS
DENY THE CREATIVE POWER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Bob to Charles:


The position advocated by the above groups involves a denial that the Word of God has creative power -- despite the fact the world was created by the Word of His power.
The dry bones of Ezekiel came alive by His Word, the man with the withered hand stretched it forth at the Word, Lazarus was restored by life by His Word, the story wind obeyed His Word, and sinners are made a new creation in Christ by being begotten by His Word. Nevertheless, the Hybrids allege that the Word has "no creative power."

This is according to the view of the pedo-regenerationists scholars, Dr. W. G. T. Shedd and Louis Berkhof. (See Shedd's Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 2, page 500; Berkhof's Systematic Theology, pages 574, 575). And it is Berkhof who is so widely influential in "Reformed" and Hybrid Calvinist camps.

Pedobaptists theologians, therefore, are usually not really good sources for truth on the new birth, for the fact is, they get most of their church members through a supposed "regeneration" that took place when those person were babies. This "regeneration" supposedly takes place without the Word as an instrumentality -- it is a "direct operation" by the Spirit, per Shedd and Berkhof.

Consequently, those who follow this view have a very poor grasp of what is taught in the Bible on the subject of the new birth. If they believe the superstition that infants are "regenerated" when they are still in diapers, they cannot be depended upon to know very much about this subject.

Dr. Berkhof quotes from and agrees with Dr. Shedd, and says that the Word of God, or the Gospel, "has no effect on the dead."

Berkhof says that the Word "does not operate creatively" (page 472).

Dr. Shedd, Berkhof's "authority," claims that regeneration takes place without "any instrument or means whatever," that regeneration is "independent of even the word itself," is "not effected by the use of means," and that the Holy Spirit "must operate directly, without the use of means or instruments" (Volume 2, pages 500-509.)

Shedd appeals to the case of infant "regeneration" as proof that the Word is not a creative power in "regeneration." He says that the Spirit's regenerating power is "independent even of the Word itself, is further proved by the fact that it is exerted in the case of infants without any employment of the truth" (Volume 2, page 501.

Shedd shrugs off several of the verses of Scripture which he says are "sometimes used to prove" that the Word is involved as a necessary means or instrument in regeneration, such as James 1:18, Ephesians 1:13, Colossians 1:5, and 1 Peter 1:23.

Shedd correctly says men are "born again of incorruptible seed, namely of the Holy Spirit" and he quotes the Revised Version --

, "Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God." --

But Shedds seems to be totally oblivious to the significant latter part of 1 Peter 1:23. That part of the verse says it is "THROUGH (dia) the WORD of God" that this begetting "of (ek) the Spirit" is accomplished -- "Born OF the Spirit, THROUGH the WORD of God."

The latter view is very thoroughly expounded the Stephen Charnock, as well as other Puritans with whom Shedd and Berkhof take exception. See Charnock at this website:
http://www.ccel.org/c/charnock/instr_regen/instr_regen.html

Essentially, the Shedd-Berkhof Hybrid Calvinist view is the same view the Campbellites take about the uncreative role of the Word in the new birth, for they both deny that the Spirit of God brings about the new birth by creating FAITH in Christ by means of the Word as it is empowered by the Holy Spirit. In both cases, the Word is a "dead letter" so far as having a creative part to play in effecting the new birth.

Hardshells, pedo-regenerationists, and Hybrid Calvinists who share the same view as Shedd and Berkhof are therefore in agreement with the Campbellite view when they advocate the idea that "regeneration precedes faith," or "born again before faith." All of them deny the creative, begetting, quickening power of the Word of God, which according to Scripture is that instrument by which the Holy Spirit "quickens," or makes alive (John 6:63).

Jesus taught that the Word of God was that which "quickens," for the Spirit goes with and in that Word(John 6:63). Creedal Calvinists such as C. H. Spurgeon taught that the Word has "quickening" power. Spurgeon often referred to the "quickening Word."

Campbellites deny that the Word quickens the dead sinner and brings him to believe in Christ, and so do those who teach that "regeneration" takes places before faith. The view of James White, Scott Morgan, Tom Schreiner, and others who share their view hold with the Campbellites that the Word does not quicken unto life. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:54:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

WHEN AND HOW WAS SCOTT MORGAN
"BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH"?

Scott said...

Bob and Charles, . . .

Bob to Scott:

You keep evading telling us how you were saved, and under whose preaching you were converted.

I am of the opinion you probably professed faith under what you would not call "Arminian" preaching, and you probably made a public profession during an invitation.

As I right . . . or what?

Nine out of every ten Hybrid Calvinists I know were "saved" the same way as above -- under what they now call "Arminian" preaching, and made professions in a public invitation.

But they have since then gone so far off into "ordo paludal idolatry" that they have left their "first love," the Gospel of salvation by simple faith in Jesus Christ.

Spurgeon never lost his infatuation with his "first love," and he often told about "Looking and living" under that Arminian Methodist layman's message, and that is why he is so different compared to the Hybrid Calvinists. He remained true to his "first love" -- the simple Gospel of Christ. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:21:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

JAMES WHITE IS WHINING FOR LACK
OF ATTENTION

Bob to Charles


I visited James White's website today for the first time in awhile, and he is whining for lack of attention from the Caner brothers.

James complains --

More than one person has told me they never expect to see a debate take place October 16th, and they never have. There are many people in the SBC who would never want to see the debate take place, some of whom wield a tremendous amount of clout. Is that why the Caners have stopped talking? I do not know. Are they embarrassed by what they have already said in the correspondence? Possibly. We simply do not know. All I know is over the past week I have sent numerous e-mails to which I have not received a single word in response.

Instead of being out witnessing to the lost, seeking to find the lost sheep to bring them into fold, James says he has been out riding his bike, and is unhappy because he can't get any response from the Caners to his emails.

Now he seems to be getting a little paranoid, suggesting that someone in the SBC is nixing his insatiable lusts for engaging in debates, especially when he thinks he has the "edge" on someone.

I was thinking, Charles, if James has a "cancellation" by the Caners, wonder what would be the prospects for his inviting me to "fill in" and he could try his hand against my understanding of Creedal Calvinism? -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:29:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Scott,

I rarely delete a post but your offering today was incoherent.

Brother, I like you. Like everyone else, you know you have a lot of liberty to post here on The Calvinist Flyswatter. But please stay ON TOPIC.

If you are unable to refute an argument then it is perfectly OK to concede that you are whipped.

Charles

 
At Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:16:00 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Charles Church,

There are a couple of us who are laughing at how off you and Bob are on Gill and the Calvinistic Baptist Confessions. We just find you guys "Funny" that you can see clear phrases from Spurgeon that say" Conversion is the fruit of Regeneration" and NHC " In order to be saved we must be regenerated or born again." How clear can it get for you? The 1689 says in article 3 " Are effectually called unto faith in Christ"( Which one comes first Effectual Calling/Regeneration before saving faith)? It's clear here as well.Here is another one 1689 article 7 " To make them willing, and able to believe" and of course chapter 10 speaks for itself.
Charles please send me some of your "Old" pamphlets about the " One eye Devil"( Tv). Tell Bob I know that I could take him in tennis and have heard about his Baptist Examiner days from the PBs'. I have heard some good stories on you guys ! I don't usually thank the " Hardshells" to much but guys you are great on the stories!

 
At Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:48:00 PM, Blogger charis said...

Mr. Ross,
Do you ever do anything for fun? If so, why are you complaining about Dr. White riding his bike? If everyone wanted to be anal, we could say whenever someone is not witnessing, they are in error.

 
At Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:17:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

"WE" ARE LAUGHING, TOO!

Scott said...


Charles Church,

There are a couple of us who are laughing at how off you and Bob are on Gill and the Calvinistic Baptist Confessions.


And "we" are laughing too, Scott, for you have now given "us" a whole name, "Charles Church." Ha,ha, ha!

Remember, you said Bob was Charles, and Charles was Bob, and now you have given "me"("us") a complete name! Now aren't you the doughty one! You are as full of magic as Benny Hinn, and you don't even have to wave your coat!

It is surprising how you keep forgetting to tell us who your "spiritual father" was -- the preacher under whom you were "regenerated without faith." I could use his name and address, so I can send him some sinners who might get a hit of that "regeneration" without faith. Some sinners I witness to just don't want to believe in Christ, and I thought if they could find your preacher -- the one under whom you were hit with "regeneration without faith" -- maybe they could get hit with a "direct operation" on them and not have to have faith.

Can you supply his name for me, Scott? Was he an Arminian or Hybrid Calvinist? -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:32:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

BOB TO CHARLES:

Charles, concerning the White and Caner debate, if that thing goes through, I may contact Brother Jerry Falwell and offer my services to help, if needed.

Jerry and I are old acquaintences, and he came to one of our Bible Conferences in Kentukcy years ago in Kentucky. He knows and believes a lot more than some people think.

While I probably differ with the Caners on some theoretical matters, the greater heresy is that of James White. He teaches that the elect are "regenerated" without faith in Christ, while the Caners at least know that in God's eernal plan of salvation faith is necessary according to the Bible and the Baptist Confession of Faith (Chapter 10).

James himself professed salvation under preaching which required faith for salvation, which is about the same as what the Caners believe, yet now James is denying his own heritage and affirming the Hardshell doctrine of "regeneration without faith."
-- Bob L. Ross

 
At Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:05:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

THE "WHITE WHINE" added to the "WHITE LIGHTNIN'"

Bob to Charles


Yesterday’s Whine, I’m yesterday’s whine
Agin’ with time, like yesterday’s whine


Charles, have you been to James White's Dumpsite today?

Well, I have, and he is featuring another of his products in his line of "snake oils" -- "WHITE WHINE."

James is moving on up, giving first page billing to his "White Whine" as a complement of his primary "White Lightnin'" elixir.

The "White Lightnin'" -- for the benefit of new readers -- is his prime "Medicine Show" elixir which promises "regeneration without believing in Christ" -- that is, if you are one of the less fortunate elect who did not get "regenerated in infancy" as an inheritance received as a result of being born to a pedobaptist parent.

The "White Whine" seems to be more of a therapeutic than an elixir, as it apparently designed to relieve the system of gastric juices caused by emotional disturbance in the mental apparatus.

James is whining about not getting debates with either Norman Geisler or Dave Hunt -- as if they did not have better things to do with themselves than pamper James.

James has his brain so addicted to debating that he almost goes into "delirium tremens" when his "habit" goes unfulfilled. He seems to have both a case of Geisleritis and Huntphrenia.

The only temporary relief is the "White Whine," and the symptions are manifest on his Dumpsite today.

I don't know if he has come up with anything to help his "Rossphobia" yet. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:45:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

GOLF, ANYONE?

Scott said...


Tell Bob I know that I could take him in tennis and have heard about his Baptist Examiner days from the PBs'. I have heard some good stories on you guys ! I don't usually thank the " Hardshells" to much but guys you are great on the stories!

Bob to Scott:

I know you must be talking about these fellows:

http://hometown.aol.com/snokidding/images/three_little_beers_1024.jpg

 
At Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:34:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

THE BIKING "APPALLINGIST"?

charis said...


Mr. Ross,
Do you ever do anything for fun? If so, why are you complaining about Dr. White riding his bike?


BOB:

Not complaining, just observing. Am I supposed to "admire" James for his being "The Biking Appallingist," or something? When does he do evangelism? Just asking, not complaining. I suppose he just leaves evangelism to "regeneration before faith," right?

BTW, that link in my earlier post to Scott should have been --

http://hometown.aol.com/snokidding/images/three_little_beers_1024.jpg

 
At Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:23:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

MOHLER'S MISPLACED CONCERN

Bob to Charles:


Charles, I am still waiting on a reply to an email I sent to Dr. Tom Nettles and Dr. R. Albert Mohler a few days ago. I was inquiring about the reported appearance of Hardshell Lasserre Bradley, Jr., pastor of Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church, at the Southern Baptist Seminary reportedly at the "invitation" of Dr. Nettles. In the past, both of them have usually responding quickly to any emails I sent to them.

What is puzzling to me is why Dr. Mohler sees the importance of blogging on the Internet wherein he expresses concern about Joel Osteen, yet he seems oblivious to the errorists who are much closer at hand.

For instance, there is the Arminian, Pelagian, Nazarene ("entire sanctification") socio-politico non-Gospel radio speaker, James Dobson, on whose board Mohler serves.

Then there is R. C. Sproul, who not only holds that infants are regenerated and are to be enrolled as church members, but also the pedo-regeneration error that "regeneration precedes faith."
Mohler has invited him to speak at SBTS.

Also, there is also Mohler's various associations with Mark Dever who has a non-Baptist agenda about restricting baptism to young people who confess Christ as Saviour, and who also advocates the pedo-regenerationist error of "regeneration precedes faith."

Mohler also has a faculty member, Dr. Thomas Schreiner, who advocates the "regeneration precedes faith" heresy.

Any one of these men has much more about them for which Mohler should be worried than Joel Osteen, a non-Sosuthern Baptist, an unafilliated and unassociated person in relation to both Mohler and the SBTS. Osteen is no kind of "threat" to Mohler in any way.

Now here comes Lassere Bradley, the world's No. 1 Hardshell, one who apostatized from missionary Baptists, renounced and has repudiated the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith all over the United States by radio and in person since his 1958 apostasy. He is "invited" to the Seminary?

What is going on in Mohler's head that he takes jabs at Joel Osteen and plays "footsies" with these other errorists? -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Friday, April 28, 2006 12:47:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Scott, Hello!

If you object to the Presbyterian doctrine that babies can be regenerated then why have you not complained to the Flounders about having R. C. Sproul at their meetings? Sproul teaches this in his study bible.

The "founder" of the Flounders was a fan of Berkhof's theology. Mark Dever promotes Berkhof on his web site. If it is not what you believe, why haven't you complained?

Also, you still haven't told Bob the name of the preacher who lead you to Jesus. What did your preacher believe about the new birth?

Charles

 
At Friday, April 28, 2006 12:54:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob Ross said, Lassere Bradley, the world's No. 1 Hardshell

My theory is that Nettles is probably trying to get him and the Hardshells to join the SBC.

If Nettles, Scott Morgan, and Mark Dever can be SBC then who knows what Bradley might do?

Until Nettles or Mohler replies we'll never know.

They need to explain what the #1 Hardshell in America was doing at Southern Seminary.

Charles

 
At Friday, April 28, 2006 1:26:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

BRADLEY AND SOUTHERN SEMINARY

Charles said...


Bob Ross said, Lassere Bradley, the world's No. 1 Hardshell

My theory is that Nettles is probably trying to get him and the Hardshells to join the SBC.

If Nettles, Scott Morgan, and Mark Dever can be SBC then who knows what Bradley might do?


Bob to Charles:

And don't forget the fact that Bradley has "oodles" of money, and could probably keep the Seminary in business on his own. And he has a lot of Harshell "ministers" associated with him and over whom he has had a "popish-like" influence for many years. Bradley could at least get them to affiliate with the Founders, if not with the Convention itself.

A whole range of possibilities open up on this thing.

A lot of the really hardline Hardshells don't like Bradley, and some have accused him of "taking over" the Primitive Baptist denomination and introducing "innovations." He seems to be good at "taking over" and he may have his eye on "taking over" Southern Seminary.

Doctrinally, it looks like the Seminary is already on its way to agreeing with Bradley on the new birth, and with his money he could probably take it over and support it, what with all the other Hardshell preachers and their churches behind him.

If this sounds "weird," just remember what weird things happened at the great Missouri Synod Lutheran Seminary in St. Louis when the "Seminex" scholars wrecked that once stable institution.

Remember, too, how Baylor University was taken away from conservative control in the Baptist General Convention of Texas and is now under the control of the anti-inerrantist "mainstreamers" who oppose the SBC and also control the BGCT.

Remember Princeton, remember Fuller, remember Crozer, and remember Southern in the 1950s under the Neo-orthodoxists.

Stranger things have happened. -- Bob

 
At Friday, April 28, 2006 1:30:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

THIRD TRY:

That link in my earlier post to Scott should have been -- combine these two lines together as one:

http://hometown.aol.com/snokidding/

images/three_little_beers_1024.jpg

--bOB

 
At Friday, April 28, 2006 11:20:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

SCOTT AND THH PBs

Bob to Charles


Scott appears to be "hanging out" with the Hardshells, Charles. This is about the equivalent of a U. S. solder in Iraq hanging out at a mosque under control of Muslim terrorists.

Theologically, there is not a greater enemy of the Gospel than the Hardshell. The Hardshell does not believe a single doctrine in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith that relates to salvation. In fact, you can be saved and never believe a word in either the Confession or the Bible, according to the Hardshell! In fact, you can be saved and never even hear the name of Jesus Christ!

And Scott Morgan enjoys the fellowship of these practical atheists? That shows you where Scott's mind is. -- Bob L. Ross

 
At Friday, April 28, 2006 12:43:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob, Hello!

You said, Theologically, there is not a greater enemy of the Gospel than the Hardshell

I was shocked when Scott Morgan revealed that he had been fellowshiping with them!

When you boil it down though, it makes sense. Theologically there is not much difference, if any, between them. The Hardshells believe the new birth occurs before a person puts his faith in Christ. Scott Morgan, by his own words, believes the same thing.

Scott has yet to reveal how he got saved or the name of the preacher. Bob, isn't it strange to be ashamed of your new birth? Even Alan Kurschner is not ashamed of revealing his testimony like Scott is.

I wonder if Scott had to give his testimony to his church before they called him as pastor? Maybe they didn't care to hear it since they all were regenerated before believing in Christ.

Charles

 
At Friday, April 28, 2006 4:41:00 PM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

WHO, IF ANY, WAS SCOTT'S SPIRITUAL "BEGETTER"?

Charles said:


Scott has yet to reveal how he got saved or the name of the preacher. . . .
I wonder if Scott had to give his testimony to his church before they called him as pastor?


Bob to Charles:

Since Scott does not believe that one is "begotten by the Gospel," as Paul taught (1 Cor. 4:15), perhaps he did not have a "father" in the faith, as Paul said he was a "father" to the Corinthians.

Scott claims he was "regenerated" before he ever was "converted," so who knows who his spiritual father was -- if any? I know there are pedo-regenerationists who claim that some pedo children get "regenerated" even before they are born. Do you reckon Scott was so specially elected that he got a pre-birth "regeneration," just as if he was a jinnuwine pedobaptist child?

Does Scott's church require one to confess that they were "regenerated" before believing? If not, how do they prevent a false profession of faith by one who believed but was not regenerated beforehand, and thus had no root? Does Jim Eliff help Scott sort out the truly regenerated ones, or is Scott able to sort them out all by himself? Or maybe the PBs help him on this? -- Bob

 

Post a Comment

<< Home