Frank Page has been elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention
Forgive this "live blogging" report but it was just announced that Frank Page was elected President of the SBC with 50.48% of the votes cast. The remaining votes were split between Ronnie Floyd and Jerry Sutton.Charles
UPDATE (4:25PM). I believe Frank Page will be good for the SBC. Some have seen him as anti-Calvinist due to his published book, “Trouble with the Tulip: A Closer Examination of the Five Points of Calvinism,” but in an interview with Baptist Press he pledged to work with all those who have "a sweet spirit, an evangelistic heart and a deep belief in the integrity of the Word of God."
He also said in the interview, "We must have honesty about this issue. There are churches splitting across the convention because pastors are coming in quietly trying to teach Calvinism or Reformed theology without telling the pastor search committees where they stand. The vast majority of Southern Baptist churches are not Calvinistic in their theology and it’s causing some serious controversy."
If Page follows his criteria then hopefully he will begin to address the many problems at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary which is killing the evangelistic spirit of the SBC, and with Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry), whose practices Page may have had in mind when he spoke of "churches splitting across the convention."
Charles
posted by Charles @ 4:13 PM
32 Comments:
What a great day for the Southern Baptist convention! I don't believe Frank Page will be timid to speak out and protect what the vast majority of Southern Baptists believe, without someone telling us what we are supposed to believe. I love Bobby Welch, and believe he is a wonderful Christian, and a good Southern Baptist. But as well it will be good for people to believe someone was elected because of the man and not his endorsements.
Where's the free for all? Where are the sparks? That .4% he won by is much like the 1000 votes Bush beat Gore by in Florida. Not a lot but just enough. Winning in the first round was as important as winning at all.
Keep your flyswatter poised sir.
INVESTIGATE HERESY AT SOUTHERN SEMINARY?
Bob to Charles:
I think it would be in order, Charles, for the new SBC President to call for an investigation at Southern Seminary.
Such an investigation should focus upon how the Baptist Faith & Message on the New Birth is being taught by the professors -- according to the "born again before faith" view of the "Reformed" "baby regenerationists" such as Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, and Frame, or according to the view Baptists have always maintained, that the new birth does not exist without Word and Spirit-produced repentance and faith?
In view of the fact Hardshell heretic Lasserre Bradley Jr. was an invited guest at SBTS should be enough within itself to justify an investigation.
Charles,
I am encouraged by Frank Page's strong Cooperative Program support. At the IMB, we get a little nervous when pastors back away from the CP.
Charles, how did you get the election results so quickly? Were you at the Convention?
John the missionary
Bro Flyswatters,
You guys are seriously funny, what with the way you do that, "Brother Bob, Hello!" and "Bob to Charles:" stuff - sort of a "Hymenaeus/Philetus" shtick. Funny stuff...and when reading your blag, I do enjoy the theologically titillating sensation that I am over-hearing a personal conversation between two men whose grasp of theology - and its personal implications - is so broad, sincere and charitable.
But seriously, do you all ever stop with the supercilious self-promotion and deal with any substantive issues? Or is it all just endlessly stickin' yer finger in someone's eye, over and over and over again...and then congratulating yourselves? How old are you guys, anyway? Larry, Curly and Moe are not particularly good moral examples to imitate, but following the apostle Paul might lessen the degree of your ethical culpability considerably come judgment day. Might be worth thinking about...
The impact you imagine you are having, even as you discerningly noted yourself - "[our] efforts to expose the 'born again before faith' heresy...is bearing much fruit" - must be very gratifying, if not...imagined. Just look at the increased traffic on your blog! Ya'll really stuck a stick in the old beehive, yeah boys! Maybe you heirs of the Anabaptist's will finally get your chance to wreak vengeance on those fatalistic calvinists for what they did to Servetus and the Radicals, 'cause by golly, you knows "heresy" when you smells it, so let's open us an investigation!
You all make me really glad that Paul wrote what he did in Philippians 1:15-18: "Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.." There's nothing new under the sun, especially when it comes to the likes of "flyswatter & flyswatter."
Praise God, even in your envy and rivalry, Christ may still be preached - if you can leave off being so enamored with yourselves and post with some degree of maturity and responsibility. Are the flyswatter bros up to it?
MORE FROM MOHLER AT SBC
Bob to Charles:
I get the Baptist Press on email everyday, Charles, and it has an interesting report of the Al Mohler-Paige Patterson exchange at the recent Convention. It appears that "political correctness" prevailed on the part of both men. Mohler did not pounce on Patterson's "Arminianism" and Patterson didn't even touch the "Hybrid Calvinism" which Mohler oversees at SBTS.
Both were equally eloquent, it seems, in regard to the unknown, unnamed "Hyper Calvinists" -- whoever these "mythical" characters may be. While Patterson did name R. C. Sproul in relation to a point of doctrine, he did not mention the fact that Mohler had the "baby regenerationist" practitioner and "born again before faith" promoter as a guest speaker at SBTS.
Mohler played the usual "We are not Hypers" tune, saying, "If you ever find a vital hyper-Calvinist movement, you will have a living oxymoron." Five-point Calvinism, Mohler said, "is not hyper-Calvinism."
Mohler evidently did not mention the fact he has Faculty members who teach the "pre-faith regeneration" theory, which differs from Creedal Calvinism, according to W. G. T. Shedd and Louis Berkhof who advocate the pre-faith notion.
Baptist Press said that Mohler cautioned Calvinists toward not having "a debating personality." "It is not healthy to have a person who will drive across the state to debate Calvinism" -- which makes us wonder if he had some one in Arizona in mind.
“Dr. Patterson and I have discussed this far more extensively than a one-hour presentation here would allow,” Mohler said. “It’s a part of the vibrancy of our friendship in the Gospel. … We owe it to each other as brothers in Christ, who share an affection for the Gospel … to, as iron sharpens iron, talk about these issues so that we can be evermore faithful in preaching and teaching the Gospel.”
I'm not so sure that this attitude is well-pleasing to Founders such as Scott Morgan, who expressed on this blog that he would like for Mohler to become SBC President and fire Paige Patterson!
Mohler has at least proven himself to be skilled in "public relations," managing to put a more "cordial face" on his "Calvinism" than the Internet zealots, while back home he "fronts" for advocates of the pedo-regenerationist theory of regeneration, with Hardshell Lasserre Bradley Jr. and "baby regenerationists" Sproul and John Frame invited as guests of the Seminary.
Brother Bob, Hello!
You said, "Baptist Press said that Mohler cautioned Calvinists toward not having "a debating personality." "It is not healthy to have a person who will drive across the state to debate Calvinism" -- which makes us wonder if he had some one in Arizona in mind.
Yes, but my thought was that he was referring to his fellow Southern Baptist, Tom Ascol. I believe Mohler is getting more than a little "put out" with Ascol and his antics.
Ascol is planning to travel from Florida to Virginia to debate Calvinism! If Mohler believes, "It is not healthy to have a person who will drive across the state to debate Calvinism," then imagine what he thinks of Tom Ascol!
Charles
You guys are sad....
and Charles...you just proved by your comment on the Founders blog, why we have such biblically illiterate people like you running around & running their mouth about scripture they do not understand.
Did you ever hear of hermeneutics, Charles? What about exegesis? Actually you were the poster boy for eisegesis by your aforementioned comment on the other blog.
The sad thing is, that although you were WAY of base with your interpretation of that text, you appear (from the tone of your blog) to be illiterate enough, truly misinformed (concerning what 'calvinist' actually believe) enough, and just plain hateful enough....TO ARGUE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT CONCERNING THAT PASSAGE ANYWAY!
Incredible!
BTW...if you argue for your interpretation of that text, you would be calling Jesus a LIAR. He (Jesus) tells us what that parable meant. BUT...you are going to pull a verse or two out of context, make it a pretext.....THAT is eisegesis.
People who handle the word of God in this manner will be ashamed before God (see 2 Timothy). If this type of handling of God's precious word is done in ignorance, that is one thing. If it has been pointed out to you, and you refuse to be the "workman" who is diligent in their Bible study, then you are just showing the ugliness of your pride, and worse yet, your lack of love for the Word.
Charles,
Nice job handling the text at the Founders Blog. Way to go in showing your ignorance of the text. Thanks Dr. Ascol for helping Charles! You are right when you say that probably some Southern Baptists think the text supports Charles view of it.
dogpreacher and anonymous, Hello!
You guys (or guy and girl) should at least link to what you are talking about. The Calvinist Flyswatter readers have no context of what you are saying.
My comment on the Flounders blog is here:
http://www.founders.org/blog/2006/06/resolution-failed.html
In my comment on the Flounders blog, I wanted to link to an article by brother Bob Ross, "IN REGARD TO COMPLAINTS ABOUT NUMBERS OF "MISSING"
CHURCH MEMBERS AT CHURCH SERVICES [02/24--2006]" but Tom Ascol usually deletes my comments when I link to or mention anything by Brother Bob. I recommend you read Brother Bob's article.
Nice of you to drop by, dogpreacher. Come back anytime. Your profile says you are pastor of a "small east-texas Baptist church." I would recommend that you read Brother Bob's article in which he answers the question, "Why are Calvinist churches usually so small?" Maybe you can break the mold.
Charles
TOM'S RESOLUTION
DOGpreacher said...
You guys are sad....
and Charles...you just proved by your comment on the Founders blog, why we have such biblically illiterate people like you running around & running their mouth about scripture they do not understand.
I wonder, Charles, how many of the "born again before faithers" would be kicked out of SBC churches if Tom Ascol's resolution were put into effect?
Would Tom be one of the first to be removed from the church roll for heresy?
ASCOL RESOLUTION
Bob to Charles:
If Tom Ascol submits his resolution again next year, Charles, I think he should include as part of it that the SBC seminaries will be admonished to not invite pedo-regenerationists and Hardshells to the campuses and recognizing them as "scholars."
Also, he could include in the resolution that affiliates of Founders will cease promoting the pedo-regenerationist heresy of "born again before faith," which is admitted by Shedd and Berkhof as being in conflict with the teachings of the Westminster Confession and the 1689 Baptist Confession which says the same as the Westminster.
MOHLER & ASCOL
Charles said...
Yes, but my thought was that he was referring to his fellow Southern Baptist, Tom Ascol. I believe Mohler is getting more than a little "put out" with Ascol and his antics.
That could be. Ascol has let James White lure him into the proposed "Caner debate" when Tom says he is not even a debater. Obviously, all White wanted was what "embellishment" Ascol, as "head" of the Founders, could shed onto White.
White has preached for -- and if I recall correctly said he would preach again for -- the HARDSHELLS if invited -- which does not speak well for Ascol's judgment in letting White "use" him as "head" of the Founders to embellish White.
Another Tom -- Nettles -- invited Hardshell Lasserre Bradley Jr. to the Seminary (according to Bradley), and Mohler has not replied to my inquiry as the "doctrinal implications" of such an invitation. Mohler may also be "put out" with Nettles' "fiddling" with Bradley, but doesn't want to say so to me.
On the surface at least, Mohler himself does not appear to be as "far gone" into Hybrid Calvinism as Nettles and Ascol. Let's hope he retains what seems to be his "moderate" approach and somehow can put the "skids" under the "born again before faith" heresy of Nettles, Schreiner, and any others at SBTS who teach it.
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, On the surface at least, Mohler himself does not appear to be as "far gone" into Hybrid Calvinism as Nettles and Ascol.
I have thought the same thing. I doubt he has seriously considered the implications of hybridism, one of which is his employment with the Southern Baptist Convention. I believe with enough time and prayer Dr. Mohler might be persuaded to see the errors of the "born again before faith" movement.
Bob, you have "lit a fire" underneath many Southern Baptists. You have carefully and painstakingly delineated the differences between the historic creedal Calvinism of men like Fuller and Spurgeon and the false hybrid/hyper/extreme Calvinism of men like "Dr." James White, Steve Camp, Dr. Tom Ascol, Dr. Tom Nettles, and the whole "Flounders" movement. You have revealed the non-Baptistic origins of their movement that surely must be embarrassing to them.
I am glad you set the record straight.
Charles
Jerry Grace said "Frank Page will ....protect what the vast majority of Southern Baptist believe..." Reliance on man is what is the problem with the SBC now. Man saves himself and man protects himself and the convention president is the pope.
The blind keep adding to the blind on this blog.
FRANK PAGE's ELECTION
Bob to Charles:
It is probable, Charles, that the endorsements of Ronnie Floyd by both Paige Patterson and R. Albert Mohler hurt Floyd with (1) those who do not like Patterson's theology and (2) those who do not like Mohler's theology.
Floyd might have done better without either endorsement.
It goes without saying that the Founders' element did not support Page. Here are a few of the pre-Convention remarks by various ones published on the Founders' blog:
>>
It is as if he is saying that truth does not matter,. . .
I think Dr. Frank Page speaks out of both sides of his Baptist mouth.
Frank Page has lied in his recent interviews or he has lied in his book. And if he has lied about this subject, how can we trust him not to lie about other matters?
If only Frank Page could practice what he preaches . . .
This sounds like the kind of doublespeak I hear every November. Floyd or Page: both seem to be cut from the same cloth.
The excerpt I took from Dr. Tom's original post above gives a glimpse of what Page is saying -- and it truly does appear to be double talk.
My fear is that truth matters to Mr. Page but that Mr. Page understands truth from the perspective of pragmatism.
>>
The above remarks from different contributors on the Founders' site seem to characterize those who are supporters of the Founders' and their Hybrid Calvinism. Everything is filtered thru the Hybrid Calvinist filter and comes out as an ugly image.
One thing admirable able Page, so far as I can discover, is that he does not "court" and "salivate" over the "scholarship" of the pedo-regenerationists who teach the heresy that elect babies are "born again" in infancy, either before, at, or subsequent to baptism -- like one finds with the Founders, Mohler, James White, etc. who fawn over Sproul, Frame, Duncan, etc.
Page's alleged "Arminian" views should be of no concern to Creedal Calvinists, since he holds to faith in Christ as an essential element in regeneration produced by the quickening Word and quickening Spirit.
Hybrid Calvinism on the new birth is much more detrimental than emphasizing the importance of faith in relation to the new birth, if even from an alleged "Arminian" perspective. After all, most of the Hybrids themselves were converted under such alleged "Arminian" preaching.
The stupidity of the SBC is seen clearly in the fact that we will use a form of church discipline against those who may be like Timothy and have a glass of wine - we will kick them to the curb. If we have a member who hasn't shown his face in a year well that is just to offensive to use church discipline. We must evangelize the already professing Christian who has been approved of by the church as Christian by allowing them to join, be baptized, and teach Sunday School until they fall off the map and well......such biblical confusion on primary and secondary issues.
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, I wonder, Charles, how many of the "born again before faithers" would be kicked out of SBC churches if Tom Ascol's resolution were put into effect?
Would Tom be one of the first to be removed from the church roll for heresy?
True. I also wonder why Brother Tom Ascol considers himself a Southern Baptist. Doesn't a church have to be in "friendly cooperation" in order to be a member of the local and state conventions? Tom has admitted that he no long submits the annual church report. As you know, Bob, this report is used by the local, state and SBC conventions to track trends such as identifing where to assign home missionaries to a field of service, etc. Many decisions on a local, state, and national level and made by relying on the accuracy of the annual reports from SBC churches.
Could the shame of having so few baptisms be a reason for Tom Ascol's trashing of the annual report? Some time ago on the Flounders blog, I commented about how few baptisms Mark Dever's church had. As you might expect, my comments didn't stay on the blog very long! Tom, or someone at the Founders blog, deleted them. I wonder why this is a sore spot for Tom?
It seems as if Tom is more concerned about kicking members out of his church than "adding to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2:47. Bob, why do you think Tom is so concerned about kicking members out as opposed to getting sinners saved and in the church?
Tom should read the article in which you answered the question, "Why are Calvinist churches usually so small?"
Charles
"REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE" OR "REGULATIVE
REPRESSION"?
Bob to Charles:
Jesus presented a scenario about the religious scholars of his day, Charles, which depicted them as "shutting up the kingdom of heaven again men," not allowing them to go in (Matthew 23:13).
We might have to call on James the Exegete to properly exegeet this verse, but I will venture to draw from it nevertheless in regard to Founders' Reisinger and Allen's contortionist book called "Worship." This is the piece of phantasmagoria wherein they allegedly "masterfully" expound and apply the pedo-regenerationist version of what is called the "regulative principle."
They apply the Presbyterian/Campbellite hermeneutic of "command, example, and inference" to do away with the public invitation to the unsaved to accept Christ and come forward to publicly confess Him -- despite the fact this is probably the way whereby most of the anti-invitationists themselves made their professions of faith.
Throughout the small book, the writers utilize all of their ingenuities, along with help from materials quoted from pedo-regenerationists, in the effort to get rid of the use of the public invitation. However, near the very end of the book, it somewhat "blew my mind" to read what the Founders' scribes had to say on pages 150, 151. On these pages, they propose that "walking down an aisle is neither commanded nor forbidden," and explain that what is of concern to them is the "reason why people are walking to the front."
It seems they will allow the public invitation to be A-OK when scrutinized by the "regulative principle" if the "reason" for coming is for anything other than its being "required for salvation."
They allege that "the altar call can serve a useful and appropriate purpose" in regard to:
(1) A way of expressing that person's desire to be baptized;
(2) To join the fellowship of the local assembly;
(3) To dedicate one's life to missionary service;
(4) Coming to the front to pray.
"These types of altar calls," they say, "do not in any fashion violate the regulative principle. . . . As long as the implication is eliminated that coming forward is required for salvation, the altar call can serve a useful and appropriate purpose."
I personally do not recall ever hearing an altar call which made "coming forward" a requirement for salvation, and I certainly would not approve of such a "requirement" as being true to the Gospel.
But what I think these writers are really saying is that a lost sinner should not be urged to come forward for any reason whatsoever. I think they are saying that an invitation of any sort to the unsaved is a violation of the "regulative principle."
All of those individuals in numbers 1 to 4 (above) are presumably "saved" already, so it is OK for them to be invited to come -- but you will notice that a lost sinner is not invited to come for any reason -- not even to come forward if he wants help in regard to the question, "What must I do to be saved?"
At the risk of being "executed" by James the Exegete, don't you think, Charles, there is a comparison of sorts here to the Pharisees of Jesus' day who were rebuked by the Lord for their "shutting up" the kingdom to those that would enter?
MORE SKUDZU?
Scott said...
We have read all of that three or four times (at least) before, Scott. Care to try to come up something we have not replied to?
Brother Bob, Hello!
You said, It goes without saying that the Founders' element did not support Page.
Yes, no question about that. The Baptist Standard wrote, "When Southern Baptist Convention messengers elected dark-horse candidate Frank Page of South Carolina as president, they not only sent a populist message to the powerbrokers who backed other candidates, but also at least in the eyes of some observers may have dealt a blow to resurgent Calvinism in SBC ranks."
Bob, I don't believe men who hold to creedal Calvinism and who model their ministry after church builders like C. H. Spurgeon have anything to worry about. The "born again before faith" Founders crowd should be very worried.
Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry) has been exposed for what it is--a bunch of wet-water Presbyterians whose doctrine is neither biblical nor Baptistic. Southern Baptists are not going to put up with the continued church splitting and heresy promoted by members of this organization.
Charles
Scott, if you're going to comment try and add some substance. That's the same old stuff.
Charles
CLEARING THE CHURCH ROLLS
Charles said...
It seems as if Tom is more concerned about kicking members out of his church than "adding to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2:47. Bob, why do you think Tom is so concerned about kicking members out as opposed to getting sinners saved and in the church?
Charles, I have been around professed "Calvinists" since the mid 1950s. I have tried my best to get them to take Spurgeon as a model, and put preaching the Gospel first and foremost.
In every case of groups with which I have been acquainted, the "growth" as been "in reverse."
You can look at any given group of them from Ashland in the 1950s to Carlisle in the 1960s to Texas in the 1970s, and elsewhere, and it is sadly a record of a "trail of blood" with "dead bodies" lying in the ditches.
Tom's concern about growing churches having "missing" ones at church is really misdirected concern. Where's there's growth, there will always be some "missing" ones.
Tom rather should be more concerned about the "seeds of death" at work in the professed "Calvinist" camp. The only hope is get their hearts back to the "first love."
FOUNDERS LIKE CAMPBELLITES?
Charles said...
Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry) has been exposed for what it is--a bunch of wet-water Presbyterians whose doctrine is neither biblical nor Baptistic. Southern Baptists are not going to put up with the continued church splitting and heresy promoted by members of this organization.
Charles, there are some striking similarities between the Founders and the origin of the Campbellites.
1. Both were influenced by non-baptistic elements in Presbyterianism.
2. Both proselyted their followings by majoring on divisive doctrines.
3. Both had "leaders" who more or less defined their doctrines and practices.
4. Both claimed to be "reforming" the church.
5. Both opposed the "simple gospel" of salvation thru faith, and evangelism based on it.
6. Both held the patternism approach of "command, example, and inference" regarding what is acceptable as "scriptural" practice in worship.
7. It only remains for Southern Baptists as a whole to become so put-out with the Founders' sectarian dissemulation and proselytism so as to "draw the line" of disfellowship as they did with the Campbellites in the latter 1820s.
Oh, please Scott add substance while we wait for the TRUTH!
"Scott said... "
Bob to Charles:
Charles, you can reply to Scott if you wish, but I am going to "pass."
I have replied to all of his palabber more than once, especially on the NHC, and I am not inclined to appear to be a fool by going over and over the same ole stuff brought up by Scott. People that want to read it can simply go back to the beginning weeks of the Flyswatter and read it.
Scott has no credibility. He even wanted to fire Paige Patterson, the hero of the Conservative Resurgence and one whom Al Mohler regards as his friend. In fact, I understand that Mohler owes his job to Patterson.
This shows you the sad state of Scott's mental and emotional turmoil. With him, it's the "Hybrid road, or Hit the Road!"
MORE ABOUT THE "MISSING"
Bob to Charles:
I want to add to what I said last night, "Tom's concern about growing churches having 'missing' ones at church is really misdirected concern. Where's there's growth, there will always be some 'missing' ones.
As I look back over the years of my acquaintence with those "Calvinists" who have made "Calvinism" the Alpha & Omega of their ministry, I have to say that they have had little if any need for "clearing the church rolls" of the professors who are among the "missing."
They have generally had so few professors, they had no reason to be concerned abot the "missing."
They did not have to worry about "false professors" walking the aisles,or a lot of "missing" members who may have been "false conversions," for the normal "converts" they made were a few disgruntled people who became obsessed with the "doctrines of grace" and turned against the "Arminian" churches where they had been lead to the Lord. These folk were happy to find a "sound, Reformed, Doctrines of Grace church" where they could hear more and more about the "sovereignty of God."
I realize that my own knowledge on this matter is limited, so I am not suggested that this is the "rule" everywhere. There could be a few exceptions since 1955 with which I am not acquainted. I am just referring to what I know firsthand.
Churches like Tom's don't really have to be concerned about the "missing" for they don't get enough professions of faith to generate a substantial number of "missing" ones.
All they need to worry about is "holding their own." I know that sounds rather "cruel," but it is just "facing the facts."
FAITH AND THE NEW BIRTH
Bob to Charles:
In view of the fact, Charles, that my view on faith and the new birth is NEVER properly represented by the Hybrid Calvinists who post on your site, some new readers may need to be properly informed from time to time. Therefore, I am reprinting this short statement from a former post. This is offset the continued misrepresentations such as recently posed in the erroneous morphism by"morpheos:"
>>
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" is the Gospel command addressed to the DEAD sinner, and the Spirit's power (Romans 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:5; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23) accompanies God's Word and produces faith in Christ, which constitutes the "life" of the New Birth (1 John 5:12).
Life is in the Son, and faith puts one into the Son. When faith in the Son is "born" or "begotten" in the sinner, then the sinner has been "born of God" (1 John 5:4, 1). This is the Creedal view in contrast to the Hybrid Calvinism view.
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/
2006/05/southern-seminary-
welcomed-wayne.html
>>
This view does not involve any "chronology" of "order," but has faith simultaneous with the creative work of the Spirit's use of the Word by which faith comes (Romans 10:17).
One who is BORN of God is therefore one in whom FAITH has been born of God (1 John 5:4, 1) No faith, no new birth.
Thus, faith neither "precedes" the new birth, nor does the new birth "precede" faith," as taught by the Hyrid Calvinists.
The simple truth is, both faith and the new birth are the simultaneous result of the Holy Spirit's using the Word of God to bring the dead sinner to Christ who is our life. Both faith and the quickening power of the Word as used by the Spirit are essential to the sinner's being born again. Since we cannot see the work of the Spirit (John 3:8), we have faith as the "barometer" or "evidence" of one's being born again or not being born again (1 John 5:1, 12).
Faith is like our breath. Breath is necessary to life. It is a gift of God and in the same instant we breathe.
This appears to me to be the Creedal Calvinism of the Confessions of Faith. It contends that faith is a necessary element in the new birth, and it is produced by the Word and Spirit, not by the power of the sinner. "Faith comes by hearing" the Word of God, and the Spirit empowers the Word (Romans 10:17; John 6:63). That is how Spurgeon preached it, how Boyce, Carroll, Dagg, Kerfoot, Broadus, and other Southern Baptists preached it.
The BROTHER SCOTT MORGAN "I'm Confused" Road Show
CHARLES TO BROTHER BOB:
You wrote, Charles, you can reply to Scott if you wish, but I am going to "pass."
I have replied to all of his palabber more than once,
He reminds me of the town drunk -- everyone trys to help him but he keeps falling down. I agree, I don't see any need for you to "fiddle" with him. I'll drop him a line or two.
You also said, In view of the fact, Charles, that my view on faith and the new birth is NEVER properly represented by the Hybrid Calvinists who post on your site, some new readers may need to be properly informed from time to time.
Not a bad idea since the "Flounders friends" pop in and out frequently without bothering to get a solid foundation of what you have said.
CHARLES TO BROTHER SCOTT MORGAN:
You said,
I showed some of our members the text you used at the Founders blog to challenge Tom Ascol".
I appreciate that but you need to be careful -- if they start reading The Calvinist Flyswatter you're going to find yourself out of a job!
There is no way an honest man can take this chapter on Regeneration in the NHC and say that this does not teach Regeneration precedes Saving Faith. It brings it about. You guys know it teaches my position but you have to " Twist" because it shows you both are Liars to the good people of the SBC.
"Dr." James White's "White Lightin" has got you confused again. Bob has refuted you thoroughly on the NHC. It does not teach that regeneration preceeds faith. You must be reading it through those Presbyterian/Founders glasses you have. "You can lead a horse to water ....."
Some of Bob's comments on the New Hampshire Confession are found here, and here. They are worth reading.
Then you will have guys like Bob Ross who will call himself a Confessional Calvinist but support men like .... Joel Osteen.
I am not too familar with Joel so I can't comment on him. I do trust Bob Ross and if Brother Bob says Joel is "A-OK" then that is pursuavive to me.
Scott, you must have taken more than a few sips of that "White Lightin" today. Didn't you realize that the two biggest advocates of fellowshiping with the charismatics and tongues crowd was none other than Wade Burleson and Tom Ascol! Both Wade and Tom want the IMB to allow charismatics and "tongues speakers" to become Southern Baptist foreign missionaries. Do you support Wade and Tom in this? The IMB wanted to close ranks and deny "tongue speaking" missionaries but Wade and Tom said no! Do you agree with them?
I think it's funny that you would attack Bob when Tom and Wade are fighting to keep charismatics and tongues in the SBC! Al Mohler's strange associations don't seem to trouble you either.
I don't know if Brother Joel or his church is charismatic. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is. If Wade and Tom have their way maybe Joel Osteen's church will give us some IMB missionaries. Wouldn't that be great! Wade and Tom would be so pleased!
Charles
CORRECTION:
In my last comment I hit "login and publish" instead of "preview." As a result the comment has several spelling and grammer errors. Please forgive my errors.
Charles
NOT VERY COMMENDABLE
Scott said...
I will put the Health of Tom Ascol's church up to any church in the SBC. I have preached at his church and have met and talked with some of his people.
I am no judge of Tom Ascol's preaching nor his church, for I am not personally acquainted with either.
But your commendation does nothing to adorn Tom, and the fact you have preached for him does even less, even puts a question mark about his discernment.
I was never called to pastor, never desired to pastor, have never pastored, and don't expect to pastor. I would not trade places with Tom Ascol, Frank Page, John MacArthur or any other pastor.
By God's grace, I am trying to do the work the Lord has providentially put upon me. Even you have commended that work, haven't you?
But if I were a pastor, I would never knowingly have a virtual "Hardshell" occupy my pulpit.
Your Hardshell-like rejection of the New Hampshire Confession on Regeneration -- that regeneration is "in connection with divine truth" and "repentance and faith are wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God," -- not to mention all the other Confessions you reject -- would even eliminate you as a candidate for ordination . . . except of course by the Hardshell Baptists. You must have been ordained by Hybrid Calvinists, for Creedal Calvinists would not have ordained you.
Also, it does not speak well of Tom Ascol that he is collaborating with James White, a "born again before faith" Hyrbrid Calvinist who has preached for the Hardshells, and says he would do so again.
Since E. W. Reisinger's death, Tom is the "front man" for a parasite organization which, admittedly, is committed to promoting Hybrid Calvinism under the guise of "reform." If that is the same committal at his church, he is probably presiding over another dying entity.
You can't put "Hybrid Calvinism" ahead of Christ and the Gospel and expect to prosper.
OSTEEN AND SCOTT
Charles said...
The BROTHER SCOTT MORGAN "I'm Confused" Road Show . . .
I am not too familiar with Joel so I can't comment on him. I do trust Bob Ross and if Brother Bob says Joel is "A-OK" then that is persuasive to me.
Remember, Charles, I offered to pay Scott's plane fare and everything else if he would come to Houston, go hear Osteen, and discovered that Osteen is "charismatic."
Instead, he refers to refer to the nutskis on the Internet who have nothing more profitable to do than attack Osteen.
Even the iMonk has not been able to find that Osteen is "charismatic," and he has been his most extreme critic. Mohler has not even found it, either.
Scott is simply dangling another one of his "red herrings" when he makes such a charge.
Besides, Osteen is not the real issue here, even if he were all the charismatics rolled into one -- the issue we have dealt with from Day One is the Hybrid Calvinism promoted by Scott, James White, the baby regenerationists (Sproul, etc.), the Founders, Gene Bridges, and the whole flock of Hybrids who want us to believe that they somehow got "born again" without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Scott just hoping the Osteen "red herring" will divert attention from Scott's own heresy.
Anyone "new" to this site -- please be informed that all of these fellows have the phantasmagorical Hardshell Baptist idea that they were "born again" without believing on Christ. Compare that to John 5:1, 4, 12, Acts 16:3l, 1 Cor. 4:15, and John 1:12, 13.
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, Remember, Charles, I offered to pay Scott's plane fare and everything else if he would come to Houston, go hear Osteen, and discovered that Osteen is "charismatic."
Yes, and I also remember he was a no show. You also offered to debate him, anytime, anywhere on the "regeneration before faith" issue but his good sense, or, rather, his wife's, got the best of him and he "pulled a James White" and turned tail and ran like a scalded dog.
You're right, Joel is not the issue. I just find it funny that Scott keeps bringing him up based on his perception that Joel is a charismatic. All the while Scott ignores Wade Burleson's and Tom Ascol's efforts to keep charismatics and "tongues speakers" in the SBC! I checked the Founders blog -- not once has Scott Morgan complained to Tom about Tom's wanting to allow charismatics to be IMB missionaries.
I'll ask again: Scott, Do you support Wade and Tom in their efforts to allow charismatics to serve as Southern Baptist missionaries?
Brother Bob, Scott's heresy from which he is trying to divert attention is the same one promoted by The Founders, James White, Tom Nettles, R. C. Sproul, and the rest: that a person has to be "born again" before he can exercise faith in Jesus Christ. Southern Baptist reject this Hardshell heresy and I believe they will shortly deal with it.
Scott Morgan and the Founders are worried, and they should be. The SBC hammer is getting ready to fall.
Charles
Post a Comment
<< Home