Gene M. Bridges falls down on "regeneration before faith"
Anyone who has read the bloviating blogger Gene M. Bridges knows it is impossible to keep up with him in a debate of words. You just can't match his verbose output. I'm not sure what he does for a living but it can't be pastoring or anything related. No one I know in ministry has time to write that many words.Gene recently wrote about me on another blog and while I don't have the time to address his many inaccuracies and falsehoods, I would like to mention one.
Concerning regeneration, Gene said,
They [By "they," Gene means Brother Bob Ross and I.] continue to distort our words. Any and all statements that state "regeneration precedes faith" are immediately taken to mean, "Hardshell Doctrine," in which a man can be regenerated and then walk around for quite some time before repenting and believing in Christ.
We [By "we," I believe Gene means Reformed Calvinists. Like many Reformed bloggers he uses the 1st person plural rather liberally and indiscriminately. Perhaps Gene believes he is their leader or master or something, thus allowing him to use the 1st person plural.] do not deny means. We deny that men can believe in the gospel apart from the effectual call of the gospel, and that men are regenerated in order to believe and repent from sin, a process that is so close together in time as to be simultaneous. The relationship is logical and causal, but not temporal. We have explained this to Charles and Bob in excruciating detail, with numerous quotes from Spurgeon, Boyce, and many others, but they refuse correction.Gene's ignorance of Reformed theology is appalling. I have three things to say about his comments.
One, Gene says that the Reformed view of "regeneration before faith" does not mean that "a man can be regenerated and then walk around for quite some time before repenting and believing in Christ." Gene is refuted by none other than John Frame, professor of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary.
Frame was once asked, "What doctrines must one believe to be saved?" He responded by saying, "None. I hold the Reformed view that children in infancy, even before birth, can be regenerated and saved, presumably before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs."
Memo to Gene M. Bridges: If a child is regenerated in infancy or even before birth and holds no "conscious doctrinal beliefs," you have a REGENERATED UNBELIEVER. Don't give me that nonsense about "The relationship is logical and causal, but not temporal." Reformed Theological Seminary professor John Frame clearly holds to a temporal relationship.
Two, Gene says that he has quoted "from Spurgeon, Boyce, and many others, but [Bob and I] refuse correction." Actually, it is Gene Bridges who refuses correction, even when the facts are clearly laid in front of him. Brother Bob Ross responded to Gene's bizarre "correction" in a series of posts and comments which I titled, The Blunders of Gene M. Bridges.
Three, Gene's vain attempt to argue for a "regeneration before faith" heresy is refuted by none other than that great Southern Baptist, B. H. Carroll. Contrast the "regeneration before faith" disciples and promoters such as Gene Bridges, John Frame, R. C. Sproul, Mark Dever, and many of the faculty of Southern Seminary, with B. H. Carroll.
As the founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Carroll said,
(1) Every one born of God has the right be called a child of God.
(2) But no one has the right until he believes in Jesus.
(3) Therefore the new birth is not completed without faith.
No one, according to Dr. Carroll, is regenerated without faith!
Dr. Carroll has long been in heaven, and unfortunately, cannot defend his syllogism in person. Not to worry, on March 20, 2006, Brother Bob Ross wrote,
Dr. Carroll was the Founder of the Southwestern Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, and a greatly respected Baptist leader, educator, and Bible expositor among Southern Baptists. His Seminary became the largest Baptist seminary in the world.It's now July 1, 2006. To my knowledge, Brother Bob has had no takers. Not James White, not R. C. Sproul, not Scott Morgan, and certainly not Gene M. Bridges.
I am willing to defend Dr. Carroll's syllogism in Public Debate with James White, R. C. Sproul, Pastor Scott Morgan, or any representative of the Founders Ministries.
I wonder why?
Charles
posted by Charles @ 1:11 AM
72 Comments:
Dear Charles and Bob,
Again I thank you for laying out the truth of this important doctrine for all to see. The Bible never even comes close to teaching 'regeneration before faith' and yet when one challenges these 'reformers of the internet' in posts about this topic, they become tired of dealing with you for your ignorance of the truth and inability to grasp the basic doctrines of salvation and then they 'cut you off'. I've tried numerous times to understand their position from Scripture and I ask for examples from Scripture to back up their position -- the best they can do is site numerous quotes from the 'regeneration before faith camp' and some even dare hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession and claim it teaches this heresy. When one such as I or yourself label this aberant belief as 'heresy', well they end up banning you from their blogs.
I consider that a compliment -- being banned for the 'truth's sake'!
In Him,
Eye
Eye,
Bible never even comes close? Romans 8:7
If "the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be" then how can you are I submit to God's command to repent and believe in Jesus?
We cannot believe it because "the natural man does not recieve the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor CAN he know them" -1 Cor 2:14
How can we believe in Christ? Our minds cannot do it if they are carnal!
All that your Reformed brothers are trying to say is that the ability to submit to Christ is God-given. Titus 3:5-6...washing by the Spirit...
This happens through the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10:17).
God uses the gospel of Christ to spiritually open our eyes to His glory in Christ (2 Cor 4:6) so that we might put our faith...which is not of ourselves (Eph 2:8)....in Christ fully.
Now if the Bible never comes close to teaching God's work before man's faith, Paul is a monkey's uncle then...
jpm
I'm wondering if even John Calvin placed regeneration prior to faith. Here is a quote from him.
“Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only follows faith, but is also born of faith…There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree. Such persons have never known the power of repentance, and are moved to feel this way by an unduly slight argument” (III, iii. 1).
“I interpret repentance as regeneration, whose sole end is to restore in us the image of God that had been disfigured and all but obliterated through Adam’s transgression…And indeed, this restoration does not take place in one moment or one day or one year; but through continual and sometimes even slow advances God wipes out in his elect the corruptions of the flesh, cleanses them of guilt, consecrates them to himself as temples renewing all their minds to true purity that they may practice repentance throughout their lives and know that this warfare will end only at death” (III, iii. 9).
End quote
It appears that Calvin above is saying that regeneration follows faith, does it not?
BEWARE -- BRIDGES IS OUT!
charles said . . .
Gene says that the Reformed view of "regeneration before faith" does not mean that "a man can be regenerated and then walk around for quite some time before repenting and believing in Christ." Gene is refuted by none other than John Frame, professor of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary.
The fact is, Charles, the truly "Reformed" adherent believes there are aplenty of "regenerated elect" who are both crawling around and walking around but have not yet repented and believed in Christ.
I have found, Charles, that Gene Bridges "writes it likes he wants it," as he is a first-class example of a "revisionist" writer on any subject on which I have seen him write.
The truly "Reformed" adherents simply chuckle at the likes of Gene Bridges who call themselves "Reformed." With his theology, Gene Bridges could not be received into a truly "Reformed" church due to his "heresy" on "regeneration."
Not only is Gene refuted by Frame, but by even greater and more significant "Reformed" names than Frame -- such as --
W. G. T. Shedd, Charles and A. A. Hodge, and Louis Berkhof -- the latter being the "darling" theolog of the Banner of Truth and the Founders Ministries.
W. G. T. SHEDD:
"The actual conferring of the Holy Spirit may be PRIOR to baptism, or IN THE ACT itself, or SUBSEQUENT TO IT. . . . the regenerating grace of the Spirit, signified and sealed by the rite, may be imparted WHEN the infant is baptized, or PREVIOUSLY, or at a FUTURE TIME." (Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, page 575.
LOUIS BERKHOF:
"The new life is often implanted in the hearts of children LONG BEFORE they are able to hear the call of the gospel," and infants "receive the seed of regeneration LONG BEFORE they come to years of discretion and therefore long before the effectual calling" ((Systematic Theology, pages 471, 472).
"It is possible to proceed on the assumption (not the certain knowledge) that the children offered for baptism are regenerated and are therefore in possession of the semen fidei (the seed of faith); and to hold that God through baptism in some mystical way, which we do not understand, strengthens this seed of faith in the child" (Systematic Theology, pages 641, 642).
A. A. HODGE:
"As regeneration is a change wrought by creative power in the inherent moral condition of the soul, infants may plainly be the subject of it in precisely the same sense as adults; in both cases the operation is miraculous, and therefore inscrutable. The fact is established by what the Scriptures teach of innate depravity, of infant salvation, of infant circumcision and baptism" (Outlines of Theology, page 464).
CHARLES HODGE:
"It does not follow from this that the benefits of redemption may not be conferred on infants at the time of their baptism. That is in the hands of God. What is to hinder the imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ, or their receiving the renewing of the Holy Ghost [i. e. regeneration], so that their whole nature may be developed in a state of reconciliation with God? Doubtless this often occurs" (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, page 590).
Does Gene Bridges hold to the "Reformed" regeneration theory of Shedd, A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, and Louis Berkhof -- or does Gene have his own "half-way" version of "Reformed" doctrine?
Would Gene be like the woman at Solomon's feet and have the child rent in halves that he might have the half of "Reformed" doctrine which he prefers?
Gene probably does not adher to the whole "Reformed" view, yet he would have us believe that Spurgeon's comments on the Hodges implies that Spurgeon agreed with their "regeneration" theories!
The fact is, Spurgeon denounced both the infant baptism taught by the Hodges, as well as their infant "regeneration" and "born again before faith" ideas.
The truly "Reformed" view is the same as the Hardshell Baptist view -- souls are "born again before and without faith." And Gene Bridges has not extricated himself from that view, despite his palabber about the so-called "ordo salutis."
According to those who are truly "Reformed," and affirm the "Reformed" "ordo salutis," there are aplenty of "regenerated elect" who "walk around for quite some time before repenting and believing in Christ."
Gene Bridges simply holds to a discombobulation -- neither "Reformed" nor "Baptist."
Brother Bob, Hello!
You said,
Gene Bridges "writes it likes he wants it," as he is a first-class example of a "revisionist" writer on any subject on which I have seen him write.
He is the Reformed Blogger King of out of context quotes. I've never seen anything like it.
Despite his affiliation with The Flounders, I don't see him asking for a public debate with you. Debates have time limits and blogs don't. He has not learned the value of being concise.
B. H. Carroll would eat his lunch.
Charles
Ya, I didnt see one Bible quote in there to substantiate your claim, until "anonymous" brought it up. If your position is so clearly right, why leave the Bible out of your post? Quote the SBC all you want, we'll never really get anywhere, unless you guys all consider a bunch of nasty, name-calling, blogging "getting somewhere".
Thankfully, jpm brought up numerous verses that require addressing, so we shall see where this takes us. Your move.
IT WOULD BE INTERESTING
Charles said...
[Gene Bridges] is the Reformed Blogger King of out of context quotes. I've never seen anything like it.
Despite his affiliation with The Flounders, I don't see him asking for a public debate with you. Debates have time limits and blogs don't.
Gene Bridges in a debate?! That would be quite interesting. I wonder if he could even "think on his feet"? He is already inept enough sitting on his bottom, and it would probably be what my Mom used to call "a sight" to see how he handled a matter on his feet.
JPM said: Now if the Bible never comes close to teaching God's work before man's faith, Paul is a monkey's uncle then...
JPM,
Thanks for your points -- for they are good ones.
I do believe that God does 'all the work' required for salvation. The Scripture is most clear on that. However, man is responsible for believing the gospel through the preaching of the Word and I might add that doesn't happen to the individual before they place faith in Jesus. Remember, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The Word of God and the preaching of the gospel are the 'effectual' means used by the Spirit of God to 'draw' the individual to God. But again, God doesn't do the 'repenting and believing for the individual' -- that is man's part.
I believe the Preacher Spurgeon would agree with my understanding of the Scriptures on this point.
Hope this helps,
Eye
GOD'S WORK BEFORE FAITH
anonymous said...
Now if the Bible never comes close to teaching God's work before man's faith, Paul is a monkey's uncle then... jpm
If you had read other items on this site, you would have known that Creedal Calvinism holds that everything essential to salvation is of God, before, during, and after faith.
Every act of faith related to salvation is begotten by the power of the Word and the Spirit of God (James 1:18; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter l:23; Romans 12:3; 1 Cor. 3:5-7), whether one is lost or saved. ALL TRUE FAITH IS BEGOTTEN BY THE WORD AND SPIRIT AND THEREFORE IS OF GOD, not of man or the flesh.
To deny that God can beget faith in the "dead" sinner is equivalent to denying the creative power of the Word in the case of the Dry Bones in Ezekiel (Ez. 37) and the raising of Lazarus by the resurrecting power of His Word in John 11.
And this is the great error of Hybrid Calvinism -- it denies the CREATIVE power of the Word of God as it is used by the Spirit (John 6:63).
As Hybrid Louis Berkhof put it, "Regeneration is a creative act, by which the spiritually dead sinner is restored to life. But the truth of the gospel can only work in a moral and persuasive way. SUCH AN INSTRUMENT HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DEAD" (page 475).
Dr. Shedd, a Hybrid, says the Word of God "cannot be a means or instrument" to the "dead" sinner to produce the new birth (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 2, page 507).
So Hybrid Calvinism denies the CREATIVE power of the Word in the hand of the Spirit. Creedal Calvinism affirms the creative power of the Word in the hand of the Spirit.
1. The Reformed idea that a logical or causal priority is not temporal lacks sense. The very sentence, "A precedes B" takes time to say!
2. Richard A. Muller is quite clear that to be a Reformed theologian, one must embrace infant baptism. Ergo, you cannot be both Baptist and Reformed. In other words, you will compromise one position or the other.
A Southern Baptist from Texas
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NO TAKERS
charles said . . .
Brother Bob Ross wrote,
I am willing to defend Dr. Carroll's syllogism in Public Debate with James White, R. C. Sproul, Pastor Scott Morgan, or any representative of the Founders Ministries.
It's now July 1, 2006. To my knowledge, Brother Bob has had no takers. Not James White, not R. C. Sproul, not Scott Morgan, and certainly not Gene M. Bridges.
And there will most likely not be any takers, Charles. The Hybrids would stand a chance in a debate with anyone who is capable of pitting Creedal Calvinism against their Hybrid Calvinism. They are only used to dealing with "Arminianism," not with Creedal Calvinism.
Yes Eye, Spurgeon would agree that man must repent and believe. But to quote the "prince" in the "Sword and Trowel, 1887, 8:
"Even the very will thus to be saved by grace is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God. There lies the stress of the question. A man ought to believe in Jesus: it is his duty to receive Him whom God hath sent orth to be a propitiation for sins. But man will not believe in Jesus, he prefers anything to faith in his redeemer. Unless the SPirit of God convincenes the judgment, and constrains the will, man has no heart to believe in Jesus unto eternal life."
And in his sermon "All of Grace" he says 'the man believes, but that belief is only one result among many of the implantations of divine life within the man's soul by God Himself.'
The question isn't whether or not man is active in conversion, he must be. But where does this activity originate? Scripture seems to leave us little hope that it originates with us, and a lot of hope that God is the source of that mercy.
Thank you for your respect and adherence to the issue, both are a rare delicacy on this blog :-)
jpm
Bob L Ross,
I would agree with you then! A miracle, not as wonderous as faith springing to life in a dead sinner by the word, but still a miracle.
I am not a hybrid calvinist by your definition.
To the Southern Baptist from Texas: you can be Reformed in regard to Soteriology and Baptist in regard to baptismal practice. You aren't forced to be 100% one and none the other. Therefore you can be a Reformed Baptist.
This is because Calvin's soteriology and his ecclesiology or not logically linked. One can be detached from the other, thus the label Reformed Baptist.
Dear jpm,
you said: "The question isn't whether or not man is active in conversion, he must be. But where does this activity originate? Scripture seems to leave us little hope that it originates with us, and a lot of hope that God is the source of that mercy."
Agreed, jpm. I enjoy pointing students of the Word to Genesis 4. We see a clear picture of Almighty God persuing His creation, specifically a man named Cain.
God seeks Cain.
God speaks to Cain.
God's conversation with Cain contains the following:
* God affirms what Cain already knows -- he is in sin
* God challenges Cain to repent by 'doing well'
* God further assures Cain that if he 'doest well', then he will be accepted.
God is love. This account is for our edification and study so we can understand the very heart of God. Truly God does not want one person to perish -- God persued Cain even though God knew in His perfect sovereignty that Cain would reject Him. We can see that here in the beginning of Scripture. God initiated everything we read in this account.
Truly though, Cain had a decision to make in the midst of God's persuing -- he could use his 'free will' to repent and obey God like his brother Abel. Sadly, Cain 'chose' not to obey God and we know he never changed his mind the rest of his life and the Scriptures affirm his state of eternal lostness.
Cain, like all of us, was made in the image of God. Cain's father was too and we clearly see that God created Adam with a free will. Every human is created in the image of God and every human possesses a free will -- that did not evaporate with the fall of man.
Moreover, God created Lucifer with a free will also. All of the angels have free wills. We know, however, the fallen angels used their free wills to follow Lucifer in his sin and their decisions were 'fixed' at that point for all of eternity.
Long way of saying it appears to me that all 'intelligent' creation by the hand of God -- angels and humans were given free will. And if mankind can use their free will to sin in a state of perfection, where in the Scripture does it teach that mankind can not use their free will even though they are seperated from God? You (jpm) may not be saying that, but most 'extreme' calvinist do not believe man has a free will.
Why would God ask Cain to 'doest well' if Cain didn't have the ability by his will do so? That will never make sense unless we understand that Cain did have the ability to humble himself and choose to obey God. Cain chose not to.
Back to point, no question that God 'draws' mankind to Himself through Jesus being lifted up on the cross. As previoulsy stated, the Holy Spirit uses the preached Word and the written Word of God to bring mankind to repentance and salvation through those means. Once a man hears and believes (FAITHS) the gospel he is then born again by God.
By the way jpm, you miss-quoted me when you said: Now if the Bible never comes close to teaching God's work before man's faith, Paul is a monkey's uncle then...
Eye said: The Bible never even comes close to teaching 'regeneration before faith'
Big difference...
In Him,
Eye
IRRESPONSIBLE BLOGS?
Bob to Charles:
While doing a Google search, Charles, I came across Wade Burleson's blogsite. Although I have never posted any comments on that blogsite nor any other than the Flyswatter, Wade did post an article I wrote in his defense in regard to "Landmarkism" a few months ago when that was an "issue" about Wade's position on an SBC agency.
I have never once posted any comments to Wade's blogsite or any other. My comments have been exclusively to my own email list and on The Calvinist Flyswatter.
However, today when I circumstantially went to Wade's blogsite, I was rather surprised to find denigration and defamation in association with my name. Although I have never once posted on this blogsite, I have become the subject of discreditation. For example --
>>
What Charles fails to disclose here is that he and his friend Bob L. Ross have been, for the past several years attacking James White, Al Mohler, the Founders, myself, and numerous Reformed Baptist bloggers, and even Tom Nettles on this issue and we have responded to them each time. They continue to distort our words.
>>
Are not the people who manage these blogs supposed to have regard for ethical standards in regard to "gossip," misinformation, etc.? Do they simply invite "character assassination"? Do they allow discreditation of this sort without any regard for the persons being discredited?
More:
>>
We have explained this to Charles and Bob in excruciating detail, with numerous quotes from Spurgeon, Boyce, and many others, but they refuse correction.
>>
Charles, why do these blog managers publish such palabber as that, and never even ask any questions about such allegations?
Not only so, Charles, but the person who posted this -- Gene Bridges -- does not even want Wade Burleson to allow a response from the person who is being denigrated by Bridges:
>>
Wade, Charles has been banned from several blogs . . .I strongly advise you to ban him.
>>
I think this exposes a whole lot about the narrow-mindedness of Gene Bridges -- it seems it is either his way or no way. He does not even want a person to have the right to respond to the critics of the person and his views in the same context wherein the person has been the subject of criticism.
I commend you, Charles, for demonstrating a completely different blog management than that proposed by Gene Bridges and practiced by any other blog manager.
Eye,
Free-will is an illusive term to define.
1. I cannot fly though I might will it. So ability must shackle the will.
2. I cannot will to be free of water, so appetite and necessity must shackle the will.
The will is merely an exercise of desire. I do what I most desire to do. Many people "want" to quit smoking, but the greater desire...addiction being the engine...wins out cigarette after cigarette until a desire greater than addiction is exhibited. Does a smoker have a free will? It is a will under compulsion to smoke. We as sinners have a will under compulsion to sin. Our will is not unfettered to jettison our "darling self" as the chief of our affections until "freed" by God Almighty to do so. This is what Romans 8:7 and 1 Cor 2:14 are so clear about, they leave us with no hope on our own. Eph 2:1 "while we were dead in sin".
Some term it regeneration, some term it "effectual call", some term is "wooing of the Spirit", but some enablement must happen before we will draw near to God.
So while I may have misquoted you in regard to specific words, my definitions were similar. God must enable. God must call with a call so powerful that it creates the faith it requires. Lazarus could not obey Jesus call to rise...could I have obeyed his call to repent and believe? I was dead in sin. There were no spiritual ears to hear. I came stumbling out of darkness covered with the graveclothes of sin , stinking something awful, and it wasn't my own two feet that got me up in the first place, it was God.
You may believe a man must believe before he can be saved, I say a man must hear before he can believe, and for that...he must have ears that "can" hear, which he has not in his natural state as mentioned above.
As Jesus told the Pharisees in John 8:47, "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."
How can we make ourself "GOD's" in order to hear God's word? We must echo Jesus' words in Matt 11:27, "nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."
jpm
Jpm said: How can we make ourself "GOD's" in order to hear God's word?
Eye's response: no man can save himself or 'make' himself a Christian by his will or any work. Salvation is a free gift for all as the Bible clearly teaches, but not all will recieve by faith the gift of God.
One becomes born again when they 'believe/faith' the gospel. As the Philippian jailer asked, 'what must I do to be saved?' -- answer: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved...
The Philippian jailer wasn't saved when he asked the question now was he? Of course not, but he knew enough as a 'dead in his trespasses and sins' to ask the evangelist though did he not? Yes he did. How you ask - by the preaching of the Word and the power of the gospel. As Paul reminded the Jews in Romans 10:8-10:
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
The Word does the work of making that lost person a believer, but it doesn't do the work before the person believes in their heart. As Spurgeon correctly says -- man is responisble and that is what these verses teach. God does all of the work, but man must believe and faith is not a work wherby a man can boast.
In Him,
Eye
SIMULTANEOUS?
Anonymous said...
You may believe a man must believe before he can be saved, I say a man must hear before he can believe, and for that...he must have ears that "can" hear, which he has not in his natural state as mentioned above.
Why can't you believe that the "ears to hear," the believing, and being saved are all the results of the power of the Word and Spirit simultaneously.
Why can't you believe that Jesus could speak to dead Lazarus and he simultaneously be given ears to hear? Why must he "first" have "ears to hear" before Jesus spoke?
When God spoke light into existence, was not God's speaking and the appearance of light simultaneous?
When God breathed life into Adam, was not God's doing that and Adam's breathing simultaneous?
When Jesus told the man with the withered hand to "stretch forth thine hand," why could not the command and the stretching be simultaneous?
Why can't the Spirit quicken the Word (John 6:63) to the dead sinner and thereby produce faith (believing) simultaneously?
Who but the Hybrid Calvinist demands that the sinner has to be "born again" before believing?
I could agree with the simultaneous impartation of ability to the dead sinner. The point I fight for, because I believe the Bible teaches it...is that God must impart it. I am fine with "born again while believing" so far as the source of that faith is not compromised.
But as I've heard other people say, regeneration preceeding faith is a logical distinction, not a temporal distinction.
jpm
BELIEVING
Anonymous said...
I could agree with the simultaneous impartation of ability to the dead sinner. The point I fight for, because I believe the Bible teaches it...is that God must impart it. I am fine with "born again while believing" so far as the source of that faith is not compromised.
It is not "ability" that is imparted, but faith itself -- produced by the Word and Spirit (Romans 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23).
A man believes because of the power of the Gospel which comes not in "word only," but applied by the Holy Spirit (Roman 1:16; 1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Peter 1:23).
But as I've heard other people say, regeneration preceeding faith is a logical distinction, not a temporal distinction. jpm
This is what we call a "ruse," for it craftily seeks to preserve the idea that the new birth is actually a distinct act which really takes place before believing rather than being similtaneous with believing.
MORE SAD MOHLER NEWS
I noticed some more sad news, Charles, concerning Dr. R. Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as to his ongoing affiliation with and promotion of Hybrid Calvinists.
He will participate in a Conference at Lexington, Kentucky,
November 3-4, 2006 with
Dr. R.C. Sproul at Tates Creek Presbyterian Church, according to R. C. Sproul's website.
We have noted on this blogsite that Sproul is currently one of the foremost advocates of (1) the "born again before faith" Hybrid Calvinism heresy on "regeneration," as well as advocating <2> the typical "Reformed" view of "baby regeneration" (see "Regeneration: The New Birth," Reformation Study Bible, page 1664).
We have noted that Mohler has not only associated with and embellished Sproul, but also John Frame who teaches that the "elect" are even "born again before being born."
Furthermore, Hardshell Baptist Lasserre Bradley Jr. reported that he visited the Seminary at the invitation of Professor Tom Nettles. Neither Nettles nor Mohler has bothered to reply to my emails inquiring about why Hardshell Bradley was invited.
Additionally, Mohler has hired faculty members who teach amd publicly advocate the "born again before faith" heresy, such as Thomas Schreiner.
So the Seminary continues to become mired deeper and deeper in Hybrid Calvinism/Hardshellism on the new birth under Mohler's leadership.
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, He will participate in a Conference at Lexington, Kentucky,
November 3-4, 2006 with
Dr. R.C. Sproul at Tates Creek Presbyterian Church, according to R. C. Sproul's website.
Southern Baptists are going to eventually wake up and realize that they have a seminary president who would be more at home at the Reformed Theological Seminary than the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Charles
I'd say that most people at SBTS believe impartation of salvation by the preaching of Christ to God's elect. Word and Spirit are the means...
I'm still sticking by "born again before faith" in the minds of most Reformed Baptists is a logical distinction and not temporal. I'd say I have first hand experience hearing that from the "horses" mouth. I attend SBTS.
About "baby regeneration"...I think you misunderstand the typical Reformed position. There is a distinction in most of their minds between the covenant community and the redeemed community within the Church. We can blame them all we want, they infer a presupposition on the Biblical text and find ways to support it. It is a theological error. But to call it "baby regeneration" is from what I know of men like Sproul, Hodge, Frame, etc.....far from the truth. But I will admit my limited knowledge in this area. I have read much Sproul, Frame, and limited amounts of Hodge but like most Reformed Baprist, I read them for Soteriology and not for my views on church government or baptism.
Spurgeon did the same thing.
Spurgeon used AA Hodge's "Outlines of Theology" as the systematic textbook in the Pastor's College. In 1877 Spurgeon said in the presence of Hodge, "The longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin's system is the nearest to perfection."
jpm
I heard that Gene Bridges likes hats. I'm not sure this has been sufficiently taken into consideration before pronouncing judgments.
INFANT REGENERATION
Anonymous said...
About "baby regeneration"...I think you misunderstand the typical Reformed position.. . . But to call it "baby regeneration" is from what I know of men like Sproul, Hodge, Frame, etc.....far from the truth. But I will admit my limited knowledge in this area.
It is obvious that you do have only a "limited knowledge in this area."
I will not make a lot of references here, but two of the foremost and most respected of the pedo theologians are W. G. T. Shedd (published by Presbyterian & Reformed) and Louis Berkhof (published by pedobaptist Banner of Truth). Both theologians have extensive material affirming that believers' "babies" are "regenerated" early on, and we have given quotations from both to this effect on this blogsite. (I use the term "babies" rather than "infants" because some readers have misunderstood in thinking we were discussing the salvation of "dying infants" rather than living infants.)
You say --
Spurgeon used AA Hodge's "Outlines of Theology" as the systematic textbook in the Pastor's College.
However, David Gracey's "Lectures on Theology" evidently became the primary text once Gracey started teaching theology (The Sword and the Trowel, 1882, page 270).
As for Hodge's book, Spurgeon's comments on the book stated that he differed with it on baptism and other unspecified teachings (The Sword and the Trowel, 1879, page 339).
It is really no mystery, however, about the things on which Spurgeon differed with any and all pedobaptists, including Hodge. We know of a certainty from Spurgeon's "Appendix" to an edition he published of Thomas Watson's "Body of Divinity"
that Spurgeon differed strongly and entirely with the Presybyterian "COVENANT" heresy and practices related to the offspring, seed, or "children of believers."
Spurgeon took pages 641-651 in that "Appendix" to refute this "covenant" heresy which he attributed to "the imagination of Paedobaptists" (page 650). He referred to the views of one of its advocates as "most absurd and monstrous" (page 648).
We included this "Appendix" in the booklet of three sermons by Spurgeon which we published on Baptism (ISBN 156186-403X, $3). You will not find this "Appendix" in the pedobaptist Banner of Truth edition of Watson's book.
You may read it, however, online at --
http://www.gracesermons.
com/robbeeee/spurgbaptism.html
I have not checked, but I assume this online copy is unabridged.
You say you are a student at SBTS. If that is indeed the case, your rather "apologetic" and "defensive" attitude toward those pedos who advocate "baby regeneration" is unfortunately consistent with what might be expected of an SBTS student under the influence of Drs. Mohler, Nettles, and any others there who are seemingly so fond of the pedos such as Sproul and Frame who advocate "born again before faith."
Indeed, the SBTS nowadays has apparently become more "presbyterian" in theology than Baptistic.
The hyper-Calvinist depends absolutely upon the strange distinction between a logical priority and a temporal priority. The problem with this distinction is that the human beings making the distinction are bound by time. The ability to view matters without regard to time is reserved for He who is not bound by time, God Himself.
If God has revealed such a distinction in regard to regeneration, then the hyper-Calvinists are theologically correct. If God has not revealed such a distinction, then the hyper-Calvinists are ... ?
A Southern Baptist from Texas
"LOGICAL NOT TEMPORAL"?
Anonymous said...
I'm still sticking by "born again before faith" in the minds of most Reformed Baptists is a logical distinction and not temporal.
The basic problem with the effort to explain "born again before faith" by using the "logical not temporal" ruse is the fact that it eliminates faith (believing) from being a constituent element in the new birth itself. It makes believing a "subsequent" matter.
But if faith (believing) is an essential, constituent element of being "born again," it is not possible to make such a distinction.
If the creation of faith (believing) by the efficient power of the Spirit and the instrumentality of the Word constitutes the new birth, then there can be no validity to the "logical not temporal" explanation of the new birth.
Both logically and temporally, the work of the Spirit thru the Word as the means in creating believing can only be categorized as simultaneous.
To illustrate, the Spirit inspired the writing of Scripture. The Spirit's inspiration of the writing and the writing by the writer were simultaneous. We could not think that inspiration "preceded" the writing, for the inspiration was in the very act of the writing itself.
So it is in regeneration. The "regeneration" does not "precede" believing, for regeneration is the very act of creating the believing itself.
The "Reformed" view was arrived at to accommodate the idea that babies are "regenerated" before they actually believe. This eliminates God-given faith as a constituent element in being born again.
WHAT ABOUT BRIDLES?
Kieran said...
I heard that Gene Bridges likes hats. I'm not sure this has been sufficiently taken into consideration before pronouncing judgments.
In the light of Gene's passion for streams of verbosity, I wonder if he would not be more appropriately adorned by a bridle than a hat? (Provers 26:3
SHEDD ON "BABY REGENERATION"
anonymous said...
About "baby regeneration"...I think you misunderstand the typical Reformed position. . . . But to call it "baby regeneration" is from what I know of men like Sproul, Hodge, Frame, etc.....far from the truth.
Here is how Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, who taught at Princeton, presents the "Reformed" doctrine on "infant" or "baby regeneration."
Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, page 575, 575:
>>
Baptism is to be administered to believers and their children . . . Accordingly, the Westminster Confession (28:iv) affirms that 'the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.' . . . The baptism of the infant of a believer supposes the actual or prospective operation of the regenerating Spirit, in order to the efficacy of the rite. Infant baptism does not confer the regenerating Spirit, but is a sign that he either has been, or will be conferred, in accordance with the divine promise in the covenant of grace.
The actual conferring of the Holy Spirit may be prior to baptism, or in the act itself, or subsequent to it.
Hence baptism is the sign and seal or regeneration, either in the past, in the present, or int he future.
The Westminster Confession (38:vi) teaches that 'the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;' in other words, the regenerating grace of the Spirit, signified and sealed by the rite, may be imparted when the infant is baptized, or previously, or at a future time. . . .
The infant of the believer receives the Holy Spirit as a regenerating Spirit, by virtue of the covenant between God and his people. . . . The infant of the believer, consequently, obtains the regenerating grace by virtue of his birth and descent from a believer in covenant with God, and not by virtue of his baptism. God has promised the blessing of the Holy Spirit to those who are born of his people. The infant of a believer, by this promise, is born into the church . . . They are church members by reason of their birth from believing parents . . .
So a baptized child, in adult years, may renounce his baptism and church membership, become an infidel, and join the synagogue of Satan; but until he does this, he must be regarded as a member of the church of Christ.
>>
This is standard-operational-procedure for the orthodox "Reformed" churches -- baptizing babies and enrolling them as church members, presuming their "regeneration."
The sad thing about this post is that I am making it in response to a person who claims to be a student at Southern Seminary yet lacks knowledge on this matter -- which either (1) reflects uppon the student's lack of attention in class or (2) the Seminary's lack of instruction about the error of the "Reformed" doctrine.
SPURGEON ON THE NEW BIRTH
Bob to Charles:
Here is another good comment, Charles, from Spurgeon, which affirms the simultaneousness of faith and the new birth:
C. H. Spurgeon said:
This new birth, this regeneration, is a great puzzle to many poor sinners. One asks, “How can I make myself a new creature in Christ?” Of course, you can do nothing of the kind. This is a miracle; it is as much a work of God to make us children of light as it was to make light at the first.
Only God can work this miracle; but mark you this, there never was a soul yet that truly believed in Christ, but at the same time it underwent the change called the new birth or regeneration.
Christians have often been asked about which is first, faith or regeneration, belief in Christ or being born again.
I will tell you when you will answer me this question, -- When a wheel moves, which spoke moves first?
“Oh, they all start together! “ say you.
So these other things all start together, whether it be the hub of the wheel, which is regeneration, or the spokes of the wheel, which are faith, and repentance, and hope, and love, and so on; when the wheel moves, it all moves at once
If thou believest in Jesus Christ and him crucified, in the moment that thou believest, this great change of nature is effected in thee; for faith has in itself a singularly transforming power. It is a fact in everyday experience that, when a man comes to believe in his master, he becomes at once a better servant. A person whom I disliked, because I suspected him, becomes at once pleasing to me as soon as I trust him. So, faith towards God in itself produces a total change of mind in the man who has it.
But, beside that, there goes with faith a divine energy which changes the
heart of man.
(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 41, page 235, Despised Light Withdrawn).
CORRECTOION ON DR. SHEDD
I am sorry, Charles, but I must have had the Hodges of "Princeton" on my mind when I said Dr. Shedd taught there. Actually, he taught at Union Theological Seminary (1863-1890).
1 JOHN 5:1 -- THE "SUGAR-STICK" OF HYBRIDS
Bob to Charles:
I noticed earlier today, Charles, while surfing some of the Hybrid Calvinist websites, that 1 John 5:1 has evidently become the "sugar-stick" for the Hybrid Calvinist heresy that one is "born again before faith."
I saw this being advocated on the Internet by The Calvinist Gadfly, Thomas Schreiner, Mark Dever, Gene Bridges, and of course I had noticed it awhile back by James White.
The rather peculiar thing about the Hybrid argument is that they allege that the only "alternative" to their view is to believe that "faith precedes regeneration." They do not recognize the fact that according to another view of the Scriptures and Creedal Calvinism, faith is a constituent element of the new birth itself and they therefore are SIMULTANEOUS and CO-EXISTENT. One does not exist at any point in time without the other.
The obvious error of the Hybrid Calvinists on 1 John 5:1 is their contention that the new birth can be an accomplished fact before, without, and apart from the new birth's most essential constituent element, faith. If the primary work of the Holy Spirit in the new birth is the very creation of faith by the Word of God, how can one be described as "born again" before there is faith?
1 John 5:1, in fact, cites faith as the great evidence that one is born of God -- not that one is born of God before, without, and apart from faith. Here are some excerpts from my article on this passage which I wrote awhile back:
DOES FIRST JOHN 5:1 TEACH AN "ORDER"
TO THE NEW BIRTH, OR REGENERATION? [04/14/04]
It is argued by James White in his writings that I John 5:1 teaches that there is "pre-faith" New Birth, or Regeneration, to the effect that the new birth precedes believing. On the other side, which he opposes, he alleges there is the view that faith precedes the new birth.
Both these views, we believe, are in conflict with our orthodox Confessions of Faith and of course with what we understand is taught in Scripture.
The idea which James White tries to prove is that in the New Birth there is an order whereby one who HAS NOT YET BELIEVED "has been born of God," and then after supposedly being born of God he is thereby given "ability" to perform the act of faith in Christ.
James claims that "spiritual birth precedes . . . faith" (The Potter's Freedom, pages 286, 288, 84).
What kind of "new birth" is it that in its very constituency lacks love for Christ and faith in Christ?
First John 5:1 reads:
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
The most evident truth of this verse is that faith and the New Birth are COEXISTENT, where there is one there is the other. They are somewhat like life itself: were there is life, there is breath; and where there is breath, there is life.
Since the person who believes in Christ is born of God, or has been born of God, then conversely the person who does not believe is not and has not been born of God.
The believer is born of God.
The unbeliever is not born of God.
There is no "middle ground," no "in-between" state, no "half-dead, half-alive" condition, so far as this passage is concerned. Believing is simply presented here as the "living proof" or evidence that one is, or has been, born of God. Conversely, no faith in Christ equals no new birth.
The verse does not deal at all with an alleged "sequence" or "order" of actions, as is advocated by James White and some others. That is not even the obvious intention of the writer, John, for he is not trying to convince his readers about what Hybrid Calvinists call the "ordo salutis." John, of all the New Testament writers, emphasizes the important necessity of faith in regard to salvation (John 20:31), that one who believes has life and the one who does not believe does not have life.
James White tries to justify his faulty "exegesis" by comparing 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 where John says that "every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." James argues that doing righteousness is "after" one has been born again.
But what James fails to note the fact that the very FIRST act of righteousness that a person does is to believe in Christ. "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:22). Believing is "obeying the Gospel" (Romans 10:16, 17; 1:16). The unsaved sinner is commanded to believe as a necessary act in being saved.
Jesus explained to Nicodemus that "eternal life" is by believing (John 3:14-18). This is same message Paul gave to the jailer in Acts 16:31. This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He hath sent (John 6:29). John wrote his Gospel for the purpose of bringing men to believe (John 20:31).
The very first commandment is summed up as love for God, and faith incorporates that love, for "faith worketh by love" (Galatians 5:6). Love is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5), and love has as its object the Lord Jesus, and the one who loves is born of God (1 John 4:7).
How could one be "born again" before he has love for and faith in Christ created in him by the power of the Word of God and Holy Spirit?
We are nowhere taught in Scripture that such a birth devoid of love and faith precedes faith. As Spurgeon put it, "Life COMES WITH believing" (MTP, Volume 27, year 1881, page 662).
It is the work of the Holy Spirit, thru the means of the Gospel or Word of God (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Peter 1:23), to create faith in the sinner, and this constitutes the new birth.
DEBATE DATE DETERMINED?
Scott said...
Bob, You still don't " Get It"!
No Scott, I did not "get it" from you about when and where we are going to have the debate to which you challenged me months ago. I would like to "get it."
When James gets back from England, and Tom gets things back to normal, why not get them to help you?
"The Three Born-Again-Before-Faith Hybrids" vs Bad Bob!
The winner gets a big bag of Vidalias, and the loser gets a load of Kudzu. And you know you just love Kudzu!
Yes, Scott, contrary to you and your Georgia Hardshell brethren, repentance and faith are essential and constituent elements in the new birth, and that is why the Baptist Confessions teach that the Holy Spirit uses the Word to produce them in the "dead" sinner who would never repent and believe if the Lord did not do a work like he did in the case of Ezekiel's dry bones. The creative Word and Quickening Spirit are so powerful that even the dead in sin come forth repenting and believing, just like Ezekiel's dry bones.
"Thanks" to Mrs. Morgan for letting you post again! We miss your palabber and phantasmagoria.
"SAVING FAITH"
scott said:
Saving Faith is the result of Regeneration.
According to the 1689 London Confession of Faith, "Saving Faith . . . is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD" (Article 14).
According to Article 10, the Lord is pleased to "effectually call, by His Word and Spirit"; and Article 13, they are "regenerated . . . by His Word and Spirit."
I wonder how you fellows who were "born again before faith" got "regenerated"?
Since you allege that you are "Reformed" in theology, does this mean you were "regenerated" when you were babies, like the "Reformed" teach?
By the way, when did you first learn that you were "regenerated" before you believed in Christ? Before or after your baptism?
If you learned it after your baptism, did you make a false profession before baptism by professomg that you were born again when you accepted Christ?
Shouldn't you get re-baptized since learning the "truth" that you were actually "regenerated" before you believed?
FRAME'S "REFORMED" VIEW
Scott said...
There is no way you can say that it says Regeneration is wrought in our souls by Repentance and Faith.
Does this mean that you endorse the "Reformed" view on "regeneration"?
In an earlier thread, Charles pointed out the "Reformed" view by quoting John Frame, who was a speaker at Southern Baptist Seminary:
>>
Frame was once asked, "What doctrines must one believe to be saved?" He responded by saying, "None. I hold the Reformed view that children in infancy, even before birth, can be regenerated and saved, presumably before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs."
The "Reformed" view makes the Gospel unnecessary, doesn't it? Isn't this also the Hardshell Baptist view?
To Anonymous:
I received your eleven and a half page, 4645 word response.
To my knowledge, only Gene M. Bridges is that verbose. Either you are Gene or one of his disciples. If a disciple then you have picked up his bad habits.
Even a casual reader of this blog knows that I post even the harshest criticism. Unfortantly, your response consists largely of word-for-word plagerized material from Bill Ascol's article on regeneration and various postings from Gene Bridges. You did not identify the plagerized material as coming from Bridges or Ascol but instead made it seem as if the material was your own words. As a result I do not believe it is in the best interest of this blog to post your comment.
Your comment included very little new material, if any. Brother Bob Ross has dealt with Gene Bridges in the Blunders of Gene M. Bridges thread.
In the future, identify your sources. Otherwise Gene Bridges may cite you as a violator of the Ninth Commandment as he is so fond of doing.
You should also learn to write more concisely. I'm running a blog here, not a book publishing company.
Charles
Concisely like you and Bob. Note everyone elses post vs Wordy Bob!
"BRIDGES" BY NO NAME IS
STILL"BRIDGES"?
Charles said...
To Anonymous:
I received your eleven and a half page, 4645 word response.
To my knowledge, only Gene M. Bridges is that verbose. Either you are Gene or one of his disciples.
Gene? -- or a "disciple"? -- wants to post 4645 words here, yet Gene has called for Charles to be "barred" from other blogs?
Doesn't he have his own blog where he can post his verbose palabber? I don't post on any other blog, so why does he want to "dump" his verbose palabber on this blog?
From what I have seen, all Gene is evade materials, pervert materials, and try to make some materials say what he wants them to say, even though they do not say it.
I wish I could get Gene, James, and Scott all together as a "team" in a debate, Charles; I wonder if they could keep their "heads together" on any given point of doctrine? All three have been so "double-minded," I hardly see how they could be in unison.
CARROLL DISTORTED . . .AGAIN
Bob to Charles:
In regard to the "anonymous" post which you emailed for me to see, Charles, I was not very far into reading it before I ran into a typical Gene Bridges' distortion. If "anonymous" is not Bridges, he is at least a near perfect clone.
Bridges, or his clone, says, "Carroll goes on to state that 'repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration' (An Interpretation of the English Bible, Volume 4, p. 287)."
In typical Gene Bridges' fashion, this is excerpted and abused in such a way as to make it "say" what Gene wants it to say -- not what Carroll actually said in context.
Below is the quote from B. H. Carroll.
On the very same page 287 Carroll has a diagram in which he has a two-line illustration which shows that --
[top line]
"Conviction -- Grace of Repentance -- Grace of Faith = New Birth"
[lower line]
"Conviction - Repentance - Faith = New Birth"
Notice, Charles, that on BOTH lines Carroll has the items listed as "EQUALING" the NEW BIRTH -- which Gene Bridges (or his clone) does not accept, so he did not quote it.
Carroll explains in what sense "repentance and faith" are "fruits," as follows -- which is not accepted by Gene Bridges:
"When we say repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration we simply mean that in each case the Spirit grace above orginates and works the respective human exercise below.
The following scriptures prove that repentance is a grace as well as a human exercise: Acts 5:31; 11:18. That faith also is a grace, is seen from 1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 3:5; 2 Peter 1:1.
The Holy Spirit then is the agent in regeneration and the instrumental means of regeneration is the Word of God, or the preaching of Christ crucified, yet the power of the Spirit does not reside in the Word as inspired by Him, but the agency is positive and active in the use of the word."
Carroll closes this chapter by saying --
"REGENERATION CANNOT BE COMPLETE WITHOUT FAITH" (page 294).
Therefore, Charles, B. H. Carroll does not mean by "fruits" that repentance and faith are subsequent to regeneration, for he plainly says "REGENERATION IS NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT FAITH."
Is Bridges (or his clone) is so dense, Charles, that he does not see that HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH B. H. CARROLL? IS HE DELIBERATELY DISTORTING CARROLL?
What Carroll teaches is exactly what we have been saying on this blogsite, and Carroll's conclusion is one which neither Gene Bridges nor any of his Hybrid Calvinist kin will affirm. Contrary to Carroll, they invariably allege that repentance and faith are "fruits" in the sense that they are subsequent to the New Birth, and are not exactly and precisely simultaneous, coexistent, constituent elements in the New Birth itself.
Now why, Charles, should we have any respect or consideration for the lengthy distortions of either Gene Bridges or his clone who try to exclude repentance and faith from being exactly simultaneous constituent elements generated in the New Birth itself by Holy Spirit's use of the instrumental means, the Word of God?
Bridges or his clone continues this same distortion when he deals with all others he mentions, plus the Confessions of faith. He simply makes them "say" what he wants them to say, which is not what they actually say.
"SO CLOSE" . . . BUT
Bob to Charles:
In golf, Charles, when a putt hangs on the lip of the cup, you might hear a golfer lament, "Close only counts in horseshoes."
The "Anonymous" fellow who seems to be either Gene Bridges or his clone, says the following about "repentance and faith" --
>>
White, Bridges, Ascol, Nettles, Dever, etc. do not deny this at all. In fact, they have stated many times that the relationship is logical and causal, not temporal and that they occur so close as to be considered simultaneous.
>>
"So close,"-- but close only counts in horseshoes.
This is a clear ADMISSION, Charles, that what we have said all along about Hybrid Calvinists is true -- they do NOT believe that repentance and faith are simultaneous constituent elements IN the New Birth itself. They SEPARATE repentance and faith as SUBSEQUENT to the New Birth -- "so close," but not actually in the New Birth.
And the fact is, in "Reformed" theology, it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that repentance and faith are subsequent to the new birth. This is necessary in order for "Reformed" theology to rationalize its heresy as to the supposed "regeneration" of babies who allegedly inherit this blessing as a result of being born to believers. Babies do not repent and believe, so if they get "born again" it is "before faith" -- according to the "Reformed."
The appeal to the case of "dying infants" is superfluous, for no Scripture reveals how these infants ultimately come to know and believe on Christ either before or after physical death.
Anonymous, Hello!
You wrote, Concisely like you and Bob. Note everyone elses post vs Wordy Bob!
Anon, thank you for reminding me. As Bob has mentioned before, he is under contract with The Flyswatter. The problem is not that he's too wordy but rather I can't get him to write enough!
You see, anon, every time Bob writes something new the "born again before faith" crowd gets nervous. It's that same feeling a little boy gets when he is stopped by the teacher for sneaking candy into the classroom. The hybrids know they have been sneaking heresy into the Southern Baptist Convention and they are about to get caught!
Charles
Brother Bob, Hello!
You said, This is a clear ADMISSION, Charles, that what we have said all along about Hybrid Calvinists is true -- they do NOT believe that repentance and faith are simultaneous constituent elements IN the New Birth itself. They SEPARATE repentance and faith as SUBSEQUENT to the New Birth -- "so close," but not actually in the New Birth.
The "logical" vs. "temporal" distinction is a not-so-clever sham.
Bob, where in the Bible does it speak of "logical" and "temporal" order of salvation? It's a good thing Gene M. Bridges was not in jail with Paul and Silas! They would still be explaining to the jailer how to be saved! I can just see Gene handing the jailer a thousand page thesis on "Why You Must Be Born Again Before You Can Believe."
What madness one must accept to believe "regeneration before faith"! Astounding!
Charles
SPURGEON DISTORTED . . . AGAIN
Bob to Charles:
Gene Bridges -- or his clone -- has again distorted C. H. Spurgeon. He alleges that
"Spurgeon . . . said that he agreed with A.A.'s book "to the letter," except for that" [baptism].
Spurgeon indeed said he differed with Hodge on baptism, but that was not the only thing. His brief comment on Hodge's book also indicated that he had other differences with Hodge's book. Spurgeon said, inThe Sword and the Trowel, 1887, page 339:
>>
We differ from its teachings upon baptism, but in ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE we endorse Hodge to the letter.
>>
"Almost everything else," Charles, leaves plenty of room for the fact that Spurgeon did not agree with Hodge or any other book which taught "born again before faith."
Since Spurgeon taught that "LIFE COMES WITH BELIEVING," we know of a surety that he did not agree with the doctrine taught by Gene Bridges.
Spurgeon:
>>
The new LIFE enters the soul in and through BELIEVING, and is the same life which we shall exercise for ever at the right hand of God, even as Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”
I want to enlarge a little upon the fact, that this LIFE COMES WITH BELIEVING, because I want it to be noticed that it really comes WITH BELIEVING, apart from any other necessary circumstances. (MTP, Volume 47, page 662).
>>
We just can't rely, Charles, upon what Gene Bridge or his clone say. They just come up somewhat "short" when they attempt to represent anyone or some Confession of faith. They "say" what people and Confessions don't say.
WHERE O, WHERE?
Charles said...
The "logical" vs. "temporal" distinction is a not-so-clever sham.
Bob, where in the Bible does it speak of "logical" and "temporal" order of salvation?
The Cammpbellites have a saying, Charles, that one "contacts the blood in baptism."
Numerous times I have offered them $$$ for every place in the Bible where they can find that. So far, I have lost no money. It can be found in the writings of Alexander Campbell, but not in the Bible.
Similarly, you can find the Hybrid jargon in Hybrid writers, but not in the Bible. They would give their right arm if they could find it either in the Bible or a Baptist Confession.
JAILHOUSE HYBRID CALVINISM?
Charles said...
It's a good thing Gene M. Bridges was not in jail with Paul and Silas! They would still be explaining to the jailer how to be saved! I can just see Gene handing the jailer a thousand page thesis on "Why You Must Be Born Again Before You Can Believe."
And do you suppose the Jailer would have understood the "ordo salutis" after Gene's explaining it all to him, quoting James White, Louis Berkhof, R. C. Sproul, John Frame, Scott Morgan, Tom Nettles, Thomas Schreiner, Mark Dever or some other Hybrid?
I would think the Jailer might have asked, "Must I first believe 'logically,' or should I believe 'temporally' first?"
Or, "If I believe before I get born again, will that faith count?"
JAMES P. BOYCE CLARIFIED
Bob to Charles:
Despite selected material used by Gene Bridges (or his clone), James P. Boyce clearly cannot be put into the "born again before faith" category.
We have covered Boyce before, but I would suppose there are new readers since then.
If one reads what Dr. Boyce says in the first paragraph on page 375 of his Abstract of Systematic Theology (Christian Gospel Foundation reprint of 1887 edition), it is hardly possible to lump Boyce with the "no means" theologians such as Shedd, the Hodges, Frame, and Berkhof on this matter. He refers to the Word as "part" and "in connection with" the "work of God" in production of the "result," the New Birth
Boyce was educated at Princeton Seminary under the Presbyterian scholars, particularly Charles Hodge, and some of his nomenclautre might at first appear to some as at least be consistent with Hodge's view. If Boyce indeed held that view, I would suspect he imbibed it from his Princeton Pedobaptist teachers, or at had it further devoped in his thinking under them. This theory certainly derives from the Pedobaptist Hybrid Calvinists.
However, I do not really find any explicit denial by Boyce of the "use of the Word" in the act of regeneration itself, and this strikes at the heart of the pedo theory, for this theory rests on the very foundation that "regeneration" is an act which takes place apart from the necessary use of means as the instrumentality.
In fact, in Boyce's statement on page 375, he indicates there are passages of Scripture which "sufficiently teach the USE of the word IN regeneration" (page 375). He cites some of these verses in the next few paragraphs.
That God does a pre-faith work or activity in the heart, we certainly believe, and Boyce teaches this. But that this early preliminary work constitutes the New Birth is "too much too soon," NOR WE FIND BOYCE TEACING THAT.
Rather, Boyce sets forth two inseparable categories (regeneration, conversion) which he places under ONE IDEA AS THE "NEW BIRTH" (Abstract of Theology, pages 373, 374).
He says: "They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The SCRIPTURES CONNECT the TWO under THE ONE IDEA of the NEW BIRTH, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably ACCOMPANIES regeneration."
So, with Boyce, I hardly see how it could be said that the sinner undergoes the "NEW BIRTH" BEFORE he has experienced repentance and faith, which according to Boyce constitute conversion.
If we follow Boyce's line of thought, consider the following:
If (1) "regeneration" and (2) "conversion" are "TWO under the ONE idea" of the "NEW BIRTH," then it could hardly be said that the sinner has been BORN AGAIN, or has experienced the NEW BIRTH, unless he simultaneously has experienced repentance and faith which constitute
"conversion." Boyce says the "TWO" (regeneration and conversion") go under "ONE IDEA" -- THE NEW BIRTH.
(1) Regeneration and Conversion (repentance and faith) are TWO under ONE idea.
(2) The one idea is called the "NEW BIRTH."
(3) Therefore, a sinner has not experienced the "NEW BIRTH" until he has experienced conversion (repentance and faith).
It is clear that all Boyce is teaching is that when (1) the Gospel is preached, (2) the power which regenerates "in connection with the Word" is the power of the Holy Spirit, and (3) whenever He uses the Word to generate repentance from sin and faith in Christ the sinner is born again, and (4) these combined elements -- the (a)power of the Spirit and (b) the Word-generated repentance faith -- constitute the NEW BIRTH.
Furthermore, Boyce incorporates the role of MEANS in this work, for he says "The FIRST STEP here is to make known to man the GOSPEL" (page 367). If that is the FIRST STEP, then you cannot have the NEW BIRTH without the means of the GOSPEL being used as the instrumentality by the Holy Spirit.
This certainly conflicts with the Pedo view of "born again before faith," wherein "regeneration" is imagined to be a "DIRECT OPERATION" in the case of both (1) babies and (2) adults -- apart from, without, and exclusive of the necessary use of the Word as the essential means and instrumentality, and without repentance and faith (conversion) being the immediate, simultaneous necessary production by the WORD and of the SPIRIT.
SPEAKING OF SPURGEON AND BOOKS
Bob to Charles:
In regard to books or writers with whom Spurgeon agreed, I have several times called attention to what Spurgeon said about ABRAHAM BOOTH who refutes Hybrid Calvinism --
One of the Baptist champions of the past was ABRAHAM BOOTH ((1734-1806), well-known for his great book, The Reign of Grace. He also wrote a great work entitled, Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners, in which he refutes the view of "pre-faith regeneration," or Hybrid Calvinism. It is one of the works which helped Baptists of that age avoid the pitfalls of hyper-Calvinism.
C. H. Spurgeon said of Booth and his book:
>>
I have read with some degree of attention a book to which I owe much for this present discourse -- a book, by Abraham Booth, called Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners. I have never heard any one cast a suspicion upon Abraham Booth's soundness; on the contrary, he has been generally considered as one of the most orthodox of the divines of the last generation. If you want my views in full, read his book (The Warrant of Faith, page 539, Sermon #531, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 9, year 1863).
>>
To see what Booth taught on the New Birth, go to the following website:
http://writingsofbobross.
tripod.com/0004.htm
MORE FROM B. H. CARROLL TO
REFUTE BRIDGES AND HYBRIDS
Bob to Charles:
I don't know which is more ridiculous, Charles, the defense Gene Bridges offers for the pedos, or his efffort that B. H. Carroll could be construed to support what Bridges teaches.
In addition to what we have already presented from Carroll's larger expository work, there is a separate book of his sermons which contains an entire message on Regeneration (Sermons, chapter 12).
In this sermon, Carroll has a diagram on page 177 which demonstrates that conviction, repentance, and faith equal the New Birth. I can't exactly duplicate the diagram on this blog, but it is something like this, with a }"brace" combining the two lines to = New Birth:
REGENERATION .......}
...........................}New Birth
Conv., Repent, Faith.}
What Carroll demonstrates is the Spirit's unseen inner work in using the Word (top line) is to bring conviction, repentance, and faith (lower line), which EQUALS the New Birth. He calls conviction, repentance, and faith the "constituent elements of regeneration."
Among his comments are these:
>>
I would prefer to write the word "regeneration" above a horizontal line with "conviction," "repentance," "faith" directly underneath, so that three names under the line are exactly equal in length to the one above the line.
>>
>>
Conviction, repentance and faith are the CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF REGENERATION.
>>
Carroll identified the "above line" as referring to the unseen work of the Spirit in using the Word, while the "lower line" is "as we see it" in conviction, repentance, and faith. This means they are simultaneous and coexistent.
Carroll even specifically refutes "some theologians" whom he says limit the word "regeneration" to the "influence which precedes all attention to God's word," and he says "the New Testament does not so limit the term regeneration" (pages 177, 185). He does not name the "some theologians," but I suspect he has the Hybrid pedos in mind such as Shedd.
While affirming that the Spirit does exert preliminary influence he says, "But I do not call this influence regeneration" (page 178).
There you have a specific denial, Charles, by B. H. Carroll of the idea that the preliminary influence of the Spirit is "pre-faith regeneration." He further says, "No son without faith" (page 185).
Carroll believed that the Spirit uses "the instrumentality of the Word in the new birth" (page 187.
He says (page 187):
>>
Brother preacher . . . Preach the Word. Sinner, it tells you what to do: Hear the Word, repent, accept Christ. Yes, that is simple and easy. The Word of God is preached to men and they hear that Word and they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and whosoever believeth in Him is born of God.
>>
It is no marvel, Charles, that Southwestern Theological Seminary, founded by Carroll, has been known over the years for its sending forth graduates who are noted for their evangelistic, soul winning, and missionary endeavors.
BRIDGES, AN APOLOGIST FOR PEDOS?
Bob to Charles:
Throughout his writings, Charles, Gene Bridges has been an "apologist" for the pedo-regenerationists rather than objecting to and refuting their false doctrine about "baby regeneration" and its many detrimental consequences.
I will limit my comments to one example of what Bridges says in his efforts to whitewash the pedos who teach "baby regeneration:"
>>:
Shedd further states this: The regenerate child, youth, and man, believe· and repent* immediately. The regenerate infant believes· and repents· when his faculties will admit of the exercise and manifestation of faith and repentance. This, sir, is NOT the Hardshell doctrine.
>>
Bridges is here attempting to defend Shedd's doctrine about the pedo's fiction of "regenerate infants."
Shedd's palabber is based on the false doctrine of the pedos that there is really such a thing as "baby regeneration" which is supposed to be a covenant "inheritance" of children born to believers. Instead of stopping at Shedd's words, "regenerate child," and offering a scriptural refutation of that heresy, Bridges goes on quoting Shedd as if there is legitimacy to his false doctrine about how and when the "regenerate infant believes and repents."
How is it possible that either Shedd or Bridges can know when and how a fictional "regenerate infant" will repent and believe when there is nothing taught in the Scriptures about there being any such "regenerate infant"?
How would either Shedd or Bridges know when the fictional infant's "faculties will admit of the exercise" of faith and repentance when nothing is taught in Scripture about "regenerate infants" and the subsequent development of their "faculties"?
Furthermore, the pedo heresy of "regeneration of infants" is indeed the same in all constituent elements as Hardshellism on "regeneration," for such supposed "regeneration" is allegedly accomplished BEFORE and WITHOUT the Gospel and repentance and faith in Christ -- the very same essential elements taught by the Hardshells about the act of "regeneration."
It is inconsequential and irrelevant how the pedos and Hardshells may otherwise differ on any particular point of doctrine -- which Bridges has diverted to mention as a "red herring" -- for the fact is the two teach the very same heresy that "regeneration" is a "direct operation" by the Spirit apart from, before, and without the use of the means of the Word of God or Gospel, and repentance and faith are not essential to "regeneration" itself.
Paradoxically, we don't completely disagree with the pedos and Hardshells. We find ourselves in AGREEMENT with what both the pedos and the Hardshells say about those who are supposedly subject to their "regeneration" -- namely, their "regeneration" does not impart repentance, faith, love for Christ, or any other descriptive attribute of which we read in Scripture about those who are "born of God."
In fact, theoretically, according to the pedo and Hardshell doctrine of "regeneration," one can have such "regeneration" and still be as spiritually blind, unrepentant, unbelieving, ignorant of Christ, and unsanctified as the Hottentot and Cannibal.
FOUNDERS PROMOTE PEDOS
Bob to Charles:
It seems to be, Charles, that every time I look up I see the Hybrids among the Baptists promoting and embellishing the pedo-regenerationists. It would seem that sharing the idea of "born again before faith" serves to cover a multitude of sins.
The most recent example of Baptists embelllishing pedos is the Founders Ministries' 24th Annual Conference now in progress. A "baby regenerationist" pastor is one of the featured speakers as is Tom Nettles of Southern Seminary.
http://www.founders.org/
conferences/sbfc/
Do you suppose, Charles, there will be any negative remarks about the pedo doctrine of "baby regeneration"?
I pray that those who come to this blog will read the following article and see how serious the accusations are coming from this blog. Gene Bridges has responded here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/liar-liar_11.html
The article is called "Liar,Liar..." in reference to Mr. Ross.
DESPITE BRIDGES, PEDOS DENY
THE CREATIVE POWER OF THE WORD
Bob to Charles:
I see that Gene Bridges persists, Charles, in trying to be the foremost apologist to defend the pedos such as Shedd and Berkhof and their disciples. Instead of refuting their heretical views on both infant and adult "regeneration," he trys to defend them.
He is calling me a "Liar," as he claims the pedos do believe in the use of the Word, or means, in the New Birth -- despite their plain denials in their theology books.
They do indeed say they believe in the use of "means" -- BUT AFTER what they call "regeneration" -- not in regeneration itself.
In regeneration itself, they plainly deny the use of the Word or Gospel. Note what they say --
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" (Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 500-509.)
Shedd even 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.
Berkhof follows Shedd, and says:
"Regeneration is a creative act, by which the spiritually dead sinner is restored to life. But the truth of the gospel can only work in a moral and persuasive way. SUCH AN INSTRUMENT HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DEAD" (Systematic Theology, page 474).
In his Summary of Christian Doctrine, Berkhof says:
>>
It is a creative work in which for that very reason the word of the gospel CANNOT very well be USED as an instrument.
>>
http://www.ccel.org/pipeline/1-html/5-berkhof-summery/Berkhof%2019.htm
Berkhof agrees with 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).
I do not understand why Gene Bridges has a problem understanding their plain denial -- other than the fact it would simply mean that Gene is wrong, and that seems to be something beyond Gene's capacity.
Essentially, the Shedd-Berkhof Hybrid Calvinist view is the same view the Campbellites take about the role of the Word in the new birth, for they all deny that the Spirit of God brings about the new birth in the dead sinner by creating faith in Christ through the Word empowered by the Holy Spirit. All of them say the Word is a "dead letter" so far as having a creative part to play in effecting the new birth in the dead sinner.
Gene Bridges is simply spinning his wheels in pedo-regenerationist muck and mire when he tries to make "Baptists" out of the likes of Shedd, Berkhof, and other pedos.
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; 1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Peter 1:23).
Jesus taught that the Word of God is that which "quickens," for the Spirit goes with and in that Word (John 6:63). Creedal Calvinists have always taught that the Word has "quickening" power, for the Spirit goes with it.
Gene's calling me a "liar" will not change what is written in the pedo theology books, nor the Word of God itself.
Brother Bob Ross said, I do not understand why Gene Bridges has a problem understanding their plain denial -- other than the fact it would simply mean that Gene is wrong, and that seems to be something beyond Gene's capacity.
Either that or something is wrong with his 'noggin. For someone to miss so decidedly the plain teaching of the pedos makes me believe that he might be missing something upstairs.
Gene says the infants who are regenerated accept the gospel as soon as they hear it. Brother Bob, what does that do to Romans chapter 3:11, "no one understands; no one seeks for God"? I guess Gene would have to rewrite this verse to say, "no one understands; no one seeks for God EXCEPT THOSE WHO ARE REGENERATED AS BABIES."
Charles
GENE M. BRIDGES FORGETS JOHN PIPER
Brother Bob, Hello!
John Piper is another hybrid/hyper/extreme Calvinist who believes God regenerates babies in the womb.
He writes, "We are told that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit while yet in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). In Luke's theology, being filled with the Spirit is consistently seen as an aspect of the Spirit's work among those who are regenerate."
Piper also believes David was regenerated in the womb, "Because of David's apparent mention of having faith in God while still an infant, some have concluded that God saves infants by giving them a "primitive" form of faith. That conclusion, however, is not necessary to our point; the main thing to see in this passage is that David evidently was in a saving relationship with God from his mother's womb."
Brother Bob, I would like an answer from Gene M. Bridges and John Piper as to how these babies heard the word of the Lord in their mother's womb and believed! Obviously, Piper rejects the use of "means" for regeneration.
Gene M. Bridges can defend his reformed theology all he wants in an attempt to make it palatable to Southern Baptists, the bottom line is that the Founders and Reformed crowd both reject the use of means in regeneration and they acknowledge as much when they speak of the "logical" order of salvation.
Despite Gene Bridges' bizarre attempt to "baptize" Reformed theology, Reformed theologian John Frame articulates the "official" Reformed view which should make Southern Baptists shudder. Frame asked and answered, ""What doctrines must one believe to be saved?" None. I hold the Reformed view that children in infancy, even before birth, can be regenerated and saved, presumably before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs."
Gene M. Bridges can bloviate all he wants. We know the facts, and once Southern Baptists have the facts about what the hybrid Calvinists really believe and what is being taught at Southern Seminary, then we are going to see some changes in the SBC.
Charles
BERKHOF'S BISECTING
Bob to Charles:
I again want to point out, Charles, that Gene Bridges evidently does not understand Louis Berkhof on "calling" and "regeneration" when he claims Berkhof believed in "means."
In Berkhof's scheme of things, he separates "regeneration" in what he calls its "restricted" sense from "effectual calling" -- contrary to the Confession.
He admits that he does not follow the Westminster Confession on Effectual Calling (Sys. Theo., page 470). He even grants that "in the apostolic age . . . in that missionary period . . . regeneration and effectual calling were generally SIMULTANEOUS," but nowadays Berkhof thinks "we should carefully distinguish between calling and regeneration" (page 471).
Berkhof alleges that the "ordo salutis" is more "fully developed" today than it was in the past! -- as if this justifies his error of separating "calling" and "regeneration"!
He admits that in the Westminster Confession "effectual calling includes regeneration" (page 470), but he nevertheless departs from the Confession and dissects "internal" calling away from "regeneration" which supposedly precedes "internal" calling.
He says, "Regeneration, as the implanting of the new life, precedes internal calling" -- which he alleges is the "regeneration" which he says is without the Gospel.
http://www.ccel.org/
pipeline/1-html/5-
berkhof-summery/
Berkhof%2019.htm
He says, "regeneration in the most restricted sense of the word, that is, as the implanting of the new life, is a direct and immediate work of the Holy Spirit. It is a creative work in which for that very reason the word of the gospel CANNOT very well be used as an instrument." (ibid).
This makes it possible for Berkhof to have the babies supposedly "regenerated" in infancy in the "restricted" sense supposedly "long before the effectual calling" (page 472).
As for the supposed "restricted" sense of the alleged "regeneration," Berkhof specifically denied the use of the Word as an instrumentality. He calls this "regeneration" a "hyper-physical operation of the Holy Spirit" (page 471).
This is an obvious denial of the instrumental power of the Gospel (Romans 1:16), and by such teaching Berkhof attempts to justify the heresy of "baby regeneration" apart from the Gospel as a means or instrument.
This perversion clearly conflicts with the Westminster Confession, which is the same on "Effectual Calling" as the 1689 London Baptist Confession.
The Confession teaches that sinners are called by the Word and Spirit which simply means that the Word is the instrument of the Spirit in regeneration.
Berkhof, however, makes this use of the Word a somewhat "secondary" matter, and claims that "regeneration" in the "restricted" sense has already taken place before the use of the Word as a means.
I believe this is where Gene is "missing he boat" in misunderstanding Berkhof's view. If he is not misunderstanding, then is he deliberately misrepresenting?
Brother Bob, Hello!
Even worse, Bob, as you have pointed out, there is a clear line of heresy from Berkhof to the
English pedobaptist Banner of Truth publisher, Iain Murray. Murray, in turn, influenced
Ernest Reisinger, the godfather of The Flounders.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
I wonder what Southern Baptists who follow Tom Ascol and The Founders would think if they really knew and understood what spawned The Founders.
Charles
Brother Bob, Hello!
Even worse, Bob, as you have pointed out, there is a clear line of heresy from Berkhof to the
English pedobaptist Banner of Truth publisher, Iain Murray. Murray, in turn, influenced
Ernest Reisinger, the godfather of The Flounders.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
I wonder what Southern Baptists who follow Tom Ascol and The Founders would think if they really knew and understood what spawned The Founders.
Charles
MORE WHITE WHINE
Bob to Charles:
I notice on James' website that he has returned from England, Charles, but the trip only served to regenerate his keg of White Whine. He has no sooner returned from overseas than he has returned to whining about the debate with the Caners.
He is once again posting his same complaints, but now he is calling for a major alteration -- he wants to reduce it to a 2-man debate between him and only one of the Caners. Has Tom Ascol "fallen away"? Or does James just want to hear himself talk more than would be the case in a 4-man debate?
It makes one wonder if Tom Ascol finally "woke up" to the mess he let James get him into. How in the name of common sense could Tom have ever let himself be lured to participate in this debate?
James is calling for quite a lot of response to his suggestions from Caner, and if he does not get it soon, I'm sure he will present another keg of White Whine on his website.
I would like to read your take on James' latest whine.
Here is the latest comments to give the visitors to this blog an answer to the false accusations that are being made:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-confusion-from-calvinist.html
"Mr. Ross has also stated that James White does not wish to debate him. Yet Dr. White has plainly invited Charles and, by extension Mr. Ross, to call the Dividing Line anytime. Let's see Mr. Ross have the courage of his convictions. Let's see him actually interact with James White on this on the DL instead of hiding like a roach in the darkness of the comment box of the Calvinist Flyswatter. The number is 1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free) Most Tuesday Mornings at 11:00am MST and Most Thursday Afternoons at 4:00 MST."
Taken from Triablogue.blogspot.com
BRIDGES BLUNDERS AGAIN
Bob to Charles:
I don't have time tonight, Charles, but I will take a longer look at Gene Bridges' latest on Friday.
However, I will cite his early first blunder, which is trying to whitewash Sproul. Actually, the quote he gives from Sproul reveals exactly what I have said. Notice:
>>
Hearing the gospel enlightens the mind, yet it DOES NOT not awaken the soul until the Holy Spirit illuminates it and regenerates it. This move from ear to soul is made by the Holy Spirit. This move is what accompanies God's purpose of applying the benefits of Christ' work to the elect.
>>
This is a plain denial by Sproul of the creative power of the Spirit in the Gospel. The Gospel is presented by Sproul as powerless till AFTER "regeneration." Therefore, it is the same doctrine as taught by Shedd and Berkhof -- denying that the creative power of the Spirit goes in and with the Word (Romans 1:16; John 6:63; 1 Thess. 1:5).
It is the same old "born again before faith" heresy.
I have two items about Sproul's heresy at this website:
http://writingsofbobross.
tripod.com/1toc1.html
Must go this evening. See you Friday, the Lord willing.
WHITE'S AGENT?
bobby said...
Dr. White has plainly invited Charles and, by extension Mr. Ross, to call the Dividing Line anytime. Let's see Mr. Ross have the courage of his convictions.
Are you an Agent for James, desperately trying to increase in his dwindling listening audience? If so, what is your name and where has James ever confirmed that you are his Agent? If you represent James, have him to confirm this on his website.
MORE WHITE WHINE
Brother Bob, Hello!
James White said, Dr. Caner, you fear debating me directly. That has come out clearly in our correspondence. You know you could never survive a scholarly exchange with me on the level of the text.
Incredible. It was James who wanted Tom Ascol to help him. Who knows what is going on with James and Tom?
James said (to Dr. Caner), "I have a standing challenge to you to face me, one-on-one, in front of each of your classes to discuss, from the text of Scripture, its specific teaching on election and predestination."
Who ever heard of such nonsense? Debate in "front of each of your classes"? So, according to James, Caner should invite James to each class? Is James trying to get Falwell to put him on staff? Maybe James believes that his correspondence "doctor's" degree entitles him to teach in an accredited institution!
James has become an embarrassment to the hybrid/hyper/extreme Calvinists. Even Steve Camp has found fault with him.
Brother Bob, you should visit the web site of James’ church sometime. They post the Sunday school class taught by James. I noticed on a number of occasions the “subject matter” of the class was not a Bible lesson but a review by James of his last debate! Imagine going to Sunday school and hearing, not a Bible lesson, but a wrap-up from James about his last debate performance!
Brother Bob, doesn't James’ behavior seems more like that of a megalomaniac than a minister of the gospel? He appears to be a legend in his own mind.
I believe you'll see more and more of James' associates pulling away from him in the future. He is going to isolate himself by his childish behavior which no one wants to be associated with.
Charles
BRIDGES' BOO-BOO
Gene Bridges says --
>>
I limit infant salvation/regeneration to those actually dying in infancy, and I deny that there are persons walking around in a regenerate state who have not believed.
>>
We are delighted that Gene Bridges at least apparently denies a basic element of "Reformed" theology on "regeneration" -- the false notion that there can be a "regenerated" unbeliever.
Unfortunately, Gene does not speak for "Reformed" theology on this matter, as we have noted.
Standard "Reformed" theologians such as Dr. Shedd and Dr. Berkhof (the latter theologian so highly esteemed by "Banner of Truth"/Founders followers) both teach that the children born to believers are "covenant children" and as such they inherit the promise of "regeneration."
Such "regeneration" promised to the "covenant children" is said to take place before, at, or soon after baptism. The children are added to the church on the presumption of their being heirs of the covenant blessing of "regeneration," Gene Bridges notwithstanding. This is not the "exception," but the general practice in "Reformed" churches.
Dr. Shedd states the "Reformed" position:
"The actual conferring of the Holy Spirit may be prior to baptism, or in the act itself, or subsequent to it. . . . the regenerating grace of the Spirit, signified and sealed by the rite, may be imparted when the infant is baptized, previously, or at a future time. . . . The infant of the believer receives the Holy Spirit as a regenerating Spirit, by virtue of the covenant between God and his people. . . . The infant of the believer, consequently, obtains the regenerating grace by virtue of his birth and descent from a believer in covenant with God, not by virtue of his baptism. God has promised the blessing of the Holy Spirit to those who are born of his people. The infant of a believer, by this promise, is born into the church, as the infant of a citizen is born into the state. . . . They are church members by reason of their birth from believing parents. . . .
"It is possible that the baptized child of believing parents may prove, in the day of judgment, not to have been regenerated, BUT NOT PROBABLE. . . . A baptized infant, on reaching years of discretion, may to human view appear not to have been regenerated, as a baptized convert may. The fact of unregeneracy, however, must be proved before it can be acted upon. . . . So a baptized child, in adult years, may renounce his baptism and church membership, become an infidel, and join the synagogue of Satan; but until he does this, he must be regarded as a member of the church of Christ. Such instances are exceedingly rare . . . The possible exceptions to the general fact that baptism is the sign of regeneration are not more numerous in the case of baptized infants, than of baptized converts."
>>
(Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 2, pages 574-577).
Gene Bridges says, "I especially deny that infants are regenerated," which simply reveals that Gene Bridges is not "Reformed" in doctrine according to men such as Dr. Shedd and Dr. Berkhof, who follows Shedd.
Gene here conflicts with the very foundational, fundamental source of the "Reformed" doctrine of "born again before faith."
The "Reformed" doctrine is, the "covenant children" INHERIT REGENERATION; their baptism is simply the sign and seal of that supposed "covenant" promise -- although baptism does not confer regeneration -- for the Spirit allegedly confers the promised regeneration in INFANCY to the children born of believers.
The theory of "born again before faith" was developed by the pedo-regenerationists to justify the supposed "regeneration" of "covenant children." Since infants born to believers are supposedly "regenerated" without the Word, or means, the pedos also apply this same paradigm to adults, and to be consistent they argue against the necessary use of means in the regeneration of adults.
For example, Shedd alleges that since regeneration is "below consciousness" (therefore, apart from the use of means), "This fact places the infant and the adult upon the same footing, and makes infant regeneration as possible as that of adults" (page 505).
One of the primary arguments Shedd uses to allege that regeneration is an act of the Spirit without the use of means is the idea that the "regeneration" of infants takes place without means. This is "proof" to Shedd that adult regeneration likewise is without means.
In alleging that adult regeneration takes place by a "direct operation" apart from the use of means, Shedd says:
>>
That the influence of the Holy Spirit is directly upon the human spirit, and 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 truth.
>>
Bridges further says:
>>
I also do not deny means. For him to state that I have shown "no evidence" that I believe regeneration occurs apart from means or other such nonsense is still a lie on his part;
<<
I have yet to see any remarks by Gene Bridges that he believes the Holy Spirit uses the Gospel or Word of God as His instrument in the creation of faith in the act of regeneration itself. All that I have seen from Gene is that "regeneration" takes place first, then "faith" comes afterwards in connection with the Word. He did say that regeneration and faith were very "close" together, but I have not read where he says that "regeneration" and "faith" are actually simultaneous.
Gene sometimes talks about "cause and effect," but the fact is, "cause and effect" are simultaneous, not merely "close together."
For example, where there is fire (cause), there is heat (effect). The exist together.
Likewise, when one is born of the Spirit by His use of the Word of God (cause), faith (effect) exists simultaneously. As B. H. Carroll said, faith is a "constituent element" in regeneration. It is not "pre-faith regeneration" but rather it is "with-faith given by Word/Spirit regeneration"
As long as Gene persists in defending the theory of pedo-regenerationists on "regeneration," we cannot accept as "evidence" his claim that he believes in the use of "means" in the act of regeneration itself. If he wishes to recant that pedo-regeneration theory, then we will welcome his doing so. He will be welcome among the ranks of those who agree with the Creedal Calvinist view.
CHALLENGE TO GENE BRIDGES
Gene Bridges said:
>>
I have not denied means, and since to believe regeneration precedes faith in the way that I, Dr. White, and others have stated it, is not to deny means. Quite the contrary, it is predicated on the use of instrumentality, the Word of God.
>>
I would like to challenge Gene Bridges to show me one line,
or even two lines, where he ever taught that in the act of regeneration itself, when the elect sinner is actually "born again" or given "life" preceding faith, the Holy Spirit used the Gospel or Word of God as His instrumental means in regenerating the sinner preceding believing.
I have plowed thru everything he has written, and if he has ever said anything even similar to the foregoing, I somehow missed it.
The very fact that he attempts to defend the views of such men as Shedd and Berkhof on regeneration leads me believe that I have not missed it.=, but rather that he has never said it.
At the same time, he can also do the same for James White, if he has ever said such, for if he has, I have missed it.
When Gene does this, I will place his comments side-by-side with the writings by Shedd and Berkhof to illustrate how Gene Bridges compares with the comments of these noted "Reformed" theologians on the matter of "means" in the act of regeneration.
Bring it on, Gene!
WHITE WACKINESS
charles said . . .
He appears to be a legend in his own mind.
Whatever it is, Charles, he seems to be full of it. I noticed the following on his website:
>>
I will be there October 16th.
Dr. Ascol will not. He has no intention of being treated like dirt on your shoe, and I have no intention of asking him to endure such childish retorts and dishonesty. When I asked him to join me, I believed I was dealing with men of integrity who would behave as Christians. If I had had any idea of the level to which you would stoop, I would never have invited anyone at all to endure such behavior. . . . I will debate you both. . . . So it is settled. James White vs. the Caner brothers
So Ascol has pulled out, and James says he will take on both of the big bad Caner boys by himself.
Give Ascol an "A" for excercising good judgment.
As for James, give him an "A" for Appalling . . . as usual.
MacARTHUR'S METHOD?
Bob to Charles:
I noticed the following, Charles, from the blog of Nathan Casebolt, who says he has been a member of Grace Community Church for four years. It is pastored by Dr. John MacAthur:
>>
I've been a member of Grace Community Church for almost four years now. Although the congregation is invited regularly to visit the prayer room after the service, where they can receive counsel up to and including the gospel, not once have I heard a "raise your hand" or "walk the aisle" invitation.
>>
If this report is accurate, it evidently means that in lieu of the normal Baptist practice of the "public invitation," GCC practices inviting people to "the prayer room" for counseling.
Since most of the anti-inivation aricles I have read always claim that "the invitation system" is "without scriptural precedent," this would raise the same issue in regard to the practice of John MacArthur at GCC, would it not?
In other words, does "the prayer room system" have any more "scriptural precedent" than the use of invitations, which have been practiced for years and years by Baptists?
REPLY TO SCOTT
Scott said...
Bob,
First, Scott, tell me when you have scheduled our debate?
I will be happy to address all of your questions about Spurgeon, etc. when I debate you and whomever you choose to assist you.
Do you endorse this Spurgeon statement:
>>
They contend fiercely for a doctrine, and condemn everybody who cannot accept their particular interpretation of it. . . . There are some people who fetch out the doctrines of grace just in that way. I can see them trotting along with the doctrine of election just in order that some Arminian brother may dispute with them about it, and that they may bark at him." (MTP, Volume 44, page 319).
I must admit I thought about you and James "Bow-Wow" White when I read that.
I told you that I would not let you "off the hook" as to your challenge to debate, so you might as well muster up the wherewithal to set up the debate. See if you can twist James White's arm to come and help you. It would be a lot of fun cracking your head against James' gourd.
Be sure and have some Vidalias on hand, too. You can have the Kudzu. -- Bob
QUESTION FOR SCOTT
scott said . . .
I have said from the beginning and several times that I believe in the instrumentality of the Word in Regeneration however I believe Regeneration precedes saving faith.
Does this mean that you teach that one is born again before he is saved, like the Hardshells teach on what they call "time salvation"?
BTW, a former Hardshell preacher now has a website refuting Hardshell doctrine. The link is --
http://baptistgadfly.
blogspot.com/
ANOTHER QUESTION FOR SCOTT
Scott said...
Would you clarify something for me? Do you embrace Spurgeon's sermon . . .
Do you embrace Spurgeon when he says "Certainly, it is by God's Word that we BEGAN TO LIVE SPIRITUALLY; we believed on Christ through the effectual working of His Word. The living and incorruptible seed was sown in our heart, and BY IT WE BEGAN TO LIVE.... It was WHEN YOU BELIEVED God's Word THAT YOU LIVED." (MTP, Volume 44, page 326).
You keep reading Spurgeon, Scott, and he will make a Creedal Calvnist out of you yet!
BROTHER TIM BROWN NEEDS A NEW ALARM SYSTEM
Brother Bob, Hello!
I see that another "born again before faith" blogger by the name of Tim Brown has joined the ranks of the uninformed such as Gene M. Bridges, Scott Morgan, James White, etc. Tim claims the London Baptist Confession promotes BABF, a claim which you have refuted numerous times on this blog.
Tim says he is "an elder in a very small Reformed Baptist church plant, HeritageCommunityChurch.Net (are there any large Reformed Baptist churches? lol)."
No, Tim, I guess not.
Brother Bob, Tim also "installs fire systems, burglar alarms, access control and anything that requires wiring" which makes me wonder if he is installing the wrong kind of alarms. What Tim really needs, Brother Bob, is a theological alarm system which would alert him to the dangerous error of the "born again before faith" heresy.
Charles
Post a Comment
<< Home