Priesthood of the Believer: Spurgeon vs. The Founders
In this article, Tom Ascol's differences with Charles Spurgeon are again noted by Brother Bob Ross.I'm amazed that Founders Ministries (yes, they really believe what they are doing is a ministry) continues to put Spurgeon's picture on their blog.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SPURGEON vs FOUNDERS ON THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER
Bob to Charles:
Seems as if, Charles, every time Tom Ascol of the Founders comments on something, it conflicts with C. H. Spurgeon -- despite the fact that Spurgeon's picture is used on the front page of Tom's blog.
Now Tom is complaining against the "priesthood of the believer" as it was held by Spurgeon.
Tom says:
>>
Regarding the theological imprecision, I find it ironic that the self-styled heirs of the conservative resurgence have actually taken up the language of the moderate resistance by affirming the "priesthood of the believer." No individual believer consitutes a whole priesthood. The individualistic and subjectivistic spin that the moderates put on the reformation principle of the priesthood of all believers resulted in the perversion of this precious doctrine into little more than the adage that "every tub sits on its own bottom." It is a little like advocating the "communion of the saint."
9/28/2006 09:00:00 AM
>>
Contrast Tom Ascol's position on the priesthood of believers with that of C. H. Spurgeon:
>>
Every man that believes in Jesus Christ is from that moment a priest, though he be neither shaven nor shorn, nor bedecked in peculiar array. To the true believer his common garments are vestments, every meal is a sacrament, every act is a sacrifice. If we live as we should live, our houses are temples, our hearts are altars, our lives are an oblation. The bells upon our horses are holiness unto the Lord, and our common pots are as the bowls before the altar.
--JOHN’S FIRST DOXOLOGY. NO. 1737
DELIVERED ON LORD’S-DAY MORNING,
SEPTEMBER 2ND, 1883, BY C. H. SPURGEON, AT EXETER-HALL on the text: “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”- Revelation 1:5 6
>>
Spurgeon again:
>>
Christ has made every one of his people a priest, and every child of God is as much a priest as I am; and I am a priest certainly, a priest unto God to offer the spiritual sacrifice of prayer, and praise, and the ministry of the Word. But here is the peculiar joy of all Christians, that God has made them priests. If they do not use their priesthood here, I am afraid that they will never be able to use their priesthood before the throne of God with their fellow-priests. This is the melody of the heavenly song, “Washed in the precious blood, redeemed by that matchless price, we are now made unto our God kings and priests.” Even on earth each saint can sing, —
THE HEAVENLY SINGERS AND THEIR SONG. NO. 2321
INTENDED FOR READING ON LORD’S-DAY,
AUGUST 13TH, 1893, DELIVERED BY C. H. SPURGEON, AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON,
ON LORD’S-DAY EVENING, JULY 14TH, 1889.
>>
Poor Tom! It seems he has such a hard time agreeing with Spurgeon on anything!
posted by Charles @ 4:49 PM
51 Comments:
Ascol said, "No individual believer consitutes a whole priesthood."
Isn't that true? One person cannot be a priesthood.
Emir Caner agreed with Tom, BTW.
Mr. Ross,
You always make my day. Thank you for your wit, but morso I'm glad we have a human dictionary for the old English Preacher.
Grace today. With that, I am...
Peter
PRIESTHOOD?
Army of One said...
Ascol said, "No individual believer consitutes a whole priesthood."
Isn't that true? One person cannot be a priesthood.
You have diverted from the point of the post.
The point of the post was that Ascol does not agree with Spurgeon on the priesthood of the individual believer, as well as many others items.
Ascol apparently believes in a "group" priesthood but rejects the priesthood of a believer as such.
Yet Foundersism and Founderites like to brandish around the name of Spurgeon, use his photo on their blog, etc. as if they are walking in his shadow. This is disgusting to those who know Spurgeon. It is similar to Campbellites who misappropriate Spurgeon on instrumental music, baptism, elders, and the "name" of the church.
If the Founderites had lived in Spurgeon's day, they would have been throwing darts at him just like their Hyper forefathers such as pedo John Kennedy (the enemy of Moody and the beloved of Iain Murray).
Why doesn't Ascol try to stand on his own two Hybrid Calvinist feet instead of using a false image of Spurgeon as a mask for his aberrations?
_______________________________
Tom Ascol doesn't agree with the Priesthood of the believer because he wants himself, or rather The Founders, to be the priest!
He has set himself up as a modern day Diotrephes, attacking those who are doing the work of the Lord. His blog is an ongoing attack sheet, harping on anyone who doesn't meet his approval.
Thank you Bob for publishing the facts about Ascol and his divisive "ministry."
John the missionary
PRIESTHOOD & ASCOL
John the Missionary said...
Tom Ascol doesn't agree with the Priesthood of the believer because he wants himself, or rather The Founders, to be the priest!
Due to the aberrant emphasis on the priesthood of the believer among the leadership of the Baptist "moderates," especially here in the Baptist General Convention of Texas, Ascol has simply over-reacted against the view advocated by C. H. Spurgeon and other Baptists.
Leaders of the "moderates" in the BGCT and elsewhere wrongly set priesthood over against confessions of faith, similar to how they emphasized their distorted interpretation about "Jesus Christ" being the "criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted" (1963 Baptist Faith and Message, Article #1).
Actually, in regard to your assessment as to Tom's wanting to be the "priest," I surmise that he wants the Founderite interpretation and application of the pedobaptist "Regular Principle" to be "The Law and Prophets" for Baptists -- as set forth by the "creator" of the Founders, Ernest Reisinger in his book on the matter and on the Foundersism website.
As you can see from his sometimes self-effacing writings, Tom regards himself to be a humble man, and ostensibly he would desire no more than to perhaps be one of the lowest members of the Hybrid Calvinist Sanhedrin to put the "Regulative Principle," as defined by Reisinger, into effect.
You add --
He has set himself up as a modern day Diotrephes, attacking those who are doing the work of the Lord. His blog is an ongoing attack sheet, harping on anyone who doesn't meet his approval.
I personally would not mind the "attacks" by Tom if he did not claim to be standing for the same things as our Baptist forebears, especially C. H. Spurgeon. This is a farce. It is enough to turn one's stomach to see pictures of those men at the top of the blog, none of which are truly represented by the Founderites.
Tom would get far more of my respect if he simply took the positions he takes without trying to embellish his aberrancies by garnishing the tombs of honored Baptists of past ages. This is like the Pharisees who liked to identify with "Moses and the Prophets" but then added to and took away from Moses and the Prophets.
THANKS, PETER
peter lumpkins said...
Mr. Ross,
You always make my day.
You, Peter, must be very easily satisfied!
I've read some of your posts elsewhere and appreciated your insights and observations.
EVERY SAINT A PRIEST,
SAYS SPURGEON
Bob to Charles:
I was re-reading, Charles, another C. H. Spurgeon sermon, "The Kingly Priesthood of the Saints," New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, No. 10.
The following statement by Spurgeon rather summarizes the view of Spurgeon in contrast to the view expressed by Tom Ascol of the Foundersism movement:
NPSP, VOL. 1, page 75:
"EVERY saint of the Lord is a priest at God's altar, and is bound to worship God with the holy incense of prayer and praise. We are priests, EACH ONE of us, if we are called by divine grace; for thus we are priests by divine constitution."
In the light of so many significant differences between C. H. Spurgeon and Tom Ascol, is there any legitimate excuse for Ascol's using Spurgeon's photo on the masthead of the Foundersism blog?
Would it not be more appropriate for Ascol to use the photos of "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinists such as Berkhof, Frame, Sproul, Murray, etc.?
The sermon by Spurgeon is available from Pilgrim Publications in booklet form --http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/sstitle.htm -- and is also available online at --
http://www.spurgeongems.
org/vols1-3/chs10.pdf
and
http://www.spurgeon.
org/sermons/0010.htm
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote, Would it not be more appropriate for Ascol to use the photos of "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinists such as Berkhof, Frame, Sproul, Murray, etc.?
Don't forget Robert Reymond, Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary, and described by Tom Ascol as the "author of one of the finest systematic theology texts in the last 50 years."
Charles
REYMOND
charles said . . .
Don't forget Robert Reymond, Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary, and described by Tom Ascol as the "author of one of the finest systematic theology texts in the last 50 years."
He also advocates the "Reformed" ordo paludal --
>>
Page 710: SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY Consequently, regeneration must be positioned before repentance unto life and faith in Jesus Christ in the ordo salutis as the cause of both. But since Romans 8:29-3o dearly teaches that glorification is the last act in the ordo, ..."
>>
Reymond is the typical "Reformed" Hybrid Calvinist and promotes "presbyterianism" in contrast to Baptist views.
A review by David Roach of Southern Seminary says:
>>
Unlike the congregational model, Reymond argues each local church is not an autonomous unit. Instead, the New Testament teaches that congregations should form a "connectional government of graded courts," which exercises spiritual and moral oversight over individual regations.
>> [Copied from the Internet]
Reymond is also a great promoter of the "replacement" phantasmagoria about the church and Israel.
No wonder Ascol endorses Reymond.
AGREEMENT?
scott said . . .
Do you agree with Joel Osteen on everything? Just curious!
Here is Joel's Statement of Faith. Sounds good to me. Even Dr. Mohler likes it:
"Mr. Osteen's statement includes a clear and unambiguous affirmation of the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
.http://www.albertmohler.
com/blog.php
Osteen's Statement:
>>
WE BELIEVE…the entire Bible is inspired by God, without error and the authority on which we base our faith, conduct and doctrine.
WE BELIEVE…in one God who exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to this earth as Savior of the world.
WE BELIEVE…Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our sins. We believe Jesus rose from the dead and is coming again. We believe that eternal salvation is found only by placing our faith in Jesus Christ and what he did for us on the cross.
WE BELIEVE…water baptism is a symbol of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and an outward testimony to our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
WE BELIEVE…in the regular taking of Communion as an act of remembering what the Lord Jesus did for us on the cross.
WE BELIEVE…every believer should be in a growing relationship with Jesus by obeying God’s Word, yielding to the Holy Spirit and by being conformed to the image of Christ.
WE BELIEVE…as children of God, we are overcomers and more than conquerors and God intends for each of us to experience the abundant life He has in store for us.
http://www.joelosteen.com/site/PageServer?pagename=WhatWeBelieve
>>
Since you are donating books, why don't you donate Joel's book, too?
It might help those students fulfill their "Best Life Now." Why can't you appreciate God's truth wherever it is found, and by whomsoever it is set forth? Do you think Hybrid Calvinists are the only ones who ever set forth any truth?
Aren't you just a wee bit envious, Scott, of Osteen's ministry, since he did not attend a Hybrid Calvinist SBC seminary and yet he is being blessed of the Lord? Why are you always "picking on" Joel? I have never heard him criticize you, even if you do teach Hybrid Calvinist heresy on the "new birth" like the Hardshells and "baby regenerationists."
Just remember, discrediting someone else does not accredit you. You have to earn your own "spurs."
JERRY VINES?
Scott said...
Bob to Charles:
It seems, Charles, that "curious" Scott Morgan is concerned about more than Joel Osteen. On the Founderite website, he writes:
Tom, I have just been made aware that it was announced Sunday morning and evening that Dr. Jerry Vines has been asked by Dr. Johnny Hunt to preach on Calvinism at FBC Woodstock this Sunday evening 10-8-06 . For those that don't know, Dr. Vines is a member at FBCW.
10:37 AM, October 02, 2006
Does Scott agree with Jerry Vines on anything? They are in the same Convention, I think.
Wonder when was the last time Scott preached "on Arminianism"? If Brother Scott can be in the SBC and preach "on Arminianism," what's wrong with Brother Vines' preaching "on Calvinism"?
Shouldn't Scott be more concerned about what Vines says than what Joel Osteen says? After all, Joel is not in the same Convention with Scott and Vines.
Perhaps Scott should write some large placards and conduct a "protest march" over at Woodstock.
Brother Bob, Hello!
Seems to me that Brother Scott should worry about his own house. He is always worried about what is going on with Brother Johnny or Brother Joel.
I guess he got permission to post here again.
Charles
SPURGEON DIVERSION AGAIN
scott said . . .
The words of Spurgeon show me that Bob Ross is not a " Confessional Calvinist" because Spurgeon would not be " Kicking" at the Founders like you do!
Unfortunately, Scott, it is neither Spurgeon, nor his Calvinism, nor Creedal Calvinism to which I have objected and still object.
You very well know tht it is the Hybrid Calvinism, such as advocated by the "baby regenerationists," the "Reformed," the Founderites, the Hardshells, etc. to which I have objected. You will not have found one line of my objecting to Spurgeon's Calvinism nor Creedal Calvinism in my posts. It is the distortion of this Calvinism to which I have objected. Why can't you be ethical about this?
This has been made clear, so why do you keep "begging the question" by diverting to Spurgeon and his Calvinism, as if you stand for what he stood?
I have demonstrated that you and the Founders are in disagreement with Spurgeon at numerous points. You even admitted you do not agree with Spurgeon on how he used the "Sinner's Prayer."
I have also demonstrated that you do not agree with Dr. B. H. Carroll, Dr. John L. Dagg, Dr. James P. Boyce, Dr. John Gill, and any of our Baptist Confessions of Faith which were mentioned.
We have demonstrated that their Calvinism views conflict with the "born again before faith" palabber taught by the "baby regenerationists" who influenced Ernest Reisinger to start the Hybrid Calvinist Founderism movement.
You once boasted like you desired to debate me on this issue, but you have retreated to the Kudzu every time I remind you of your challenge back in the Spring. I offered to meet you and your selection of assistants -- James White, Tom Nettles, Gene Bridges, Tom Ascol, or any others you want to help you.
Why are you hiding out in the Kudzu?
CURIOUS SCOTT
scott said . . .
Face it that you attack the very men who love Dagg, Boyce, Mell, Spurgeon, Gill, and the 1644 and 1689 and NHC.
You are wrong on several counts:
(1) I have not attacked ANY "men."
(2) I have not attacked any man who loves any of the men you name.
(3) I have not attacked any man who affirms the Confessions of Faith.
What I have refuted on this blog is the HYBRID CALVINISM of the various parties and sources which have been named and quoted. You can't name a single Creedal Calvinist I have attacked, nor a single Creedal doctrine I have attacked. My posts have been focused on HYBRID CALVINISM.
Why can't you honestly admit the truth about this?
In addition, I have defended the likes of Dagg, Boyce, Mell, Spurgeon, Gill, and the 1644 and 1689 and NHC against the perversions and distortions of the Hybrid Calvinists such as Scott Morgan, Gene Bridges, James White, and other self-styled "Reformed" advocates.
If you want to back-out of your debate challenge to me for any reason, just say so.
If you don't want to debate me in Georgia because of the fear of "losing face," then I invite you to come to Pasadena, and we will debate here. You can stay in my home and I will furnish your meals. We will video tape the debate for the benefit of those who can't attend. Here is your chance to do a great work in behalf of Hybrid Calvinism.
When do you want to come?
SPURGEON'S CALVINISM
scott said . . .
You do disagree with Spurgeon's Calvinism at some points.
But I noticed, Scott, you did not quote me on anything. You just made an allegation without any evidence to support it. That earns you an "F" in any class on polemics.
Here are a few thoughts from Spurgeon on the kind of Calvinism held by Spurgeon which is so contrary to what I have read from those today who are passing themselves off as "Calvinists."
You will notice that Spurgeon said one could preach Calvinism, but not preach the Gospel. This seems to conflict with how you misconstrued one of his statements to which you referred. I think that statement simply meant that if you are a Calvinist, you will be preaching the Gospel of Christ whether you hold to the Calvinist "system" or not. Holding the Calvinist "system" does not insure you will be preaching the Gospel. You could just be holding to "dead orthodoxy' -- which seems to be case with so many "Calvinists" of our time.
SPURGEON:
"I have been treated somewhat severely by that class of brethren who are exceedingly strong in their Calvinism. Many suspect me of being a great heretic. . . . . The Calvinism of some men is not the Calvinism of John Calvin, nor the Calvinism of the Puritans, much less the Christianity of God." (New Park Street Pulpit, Volume 5, page 368).
"I believe, most firmly, in the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic, and I hold them to be very fraught with comfort to God's people; but if any man shall say that the preaching of these is the whole of the preaching of the gospel, I am at issue with m him.
"Brethren, you may preach those doctrines as long as you like, and yet fail to preach the gospel; and I will go further, and affirm that some who have even denied those truths, to our great grief, have nevertheless been gospel preachers for all that, and God has saved souls by their ministry. . . Preach Christ, young man, if you want to win souls. Preach all the doctrines, too, for the building up of believers, but still the main business is to preach Jesus who came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. . . This simple truth, that “Jesus Christ has come to seek and to save that which is lost,” and that “whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life,” must be your jewel, your treasure, your life."
[Quotations above from sermon #786 — The Great Mystery of Godliness, MTP Vol 13, Year 1867, 1 Timothy 3:16]
"I do not hesitate to say, that Phariseeism is mixed with Hyper-Calvinism more than with any other sect in the world" (New Park Street Pulpit, Year 1860, #336 — STRUGGLES OF CONSCIENCE, page 403).
"The act of TRUSTING Jesus Christ is the act which brings a soul into a state of Grace and is the mark and evidence of our being bought with the blood of the Lord Jesus. . . . See, then, the FOLLY of persons talking about being regenerated who have no faith! It cannot be! It is IMPOSSIBLE! . . . WITHOUT FAITH THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION. -- Open Heart for A Great Saviour, C. H. SPURGEON, Sermon #669, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 12, 1866:
"We care far more for the central evangelical truths than we do for Calvinism . . . Those who hold the eternal verities of salvation, and yet do not see all that we believe and embrace, are by no means the objects of our opposition. . . The present struggle is NOT A DEBATE upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. ALL WHO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL should unite against that "modern thought" which is its deadly enemy." -- The Sword and the Trowel, April 1887, pages 195, 196.
"Many evangelical ARMINIANS are as earnestly ON OUR SIDE as men can be. We do not conceal our own Calvinism in the least; but this conflict is for truths which are common to all believers. This is no battle over words, but it deals with the eternal verities--those foundation truths which belong not exclusively to this party or to that. -- The Sword and the Trowel, December 1887
"I never sought to intrude upon it any Calvinistic or other personal creed, but only that form of belief which has been accepted for many years by the Evangelical Alliance, which includes members of well-nigh ALL CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES." -- The Sword and the Trowel, February 1888, page 82.
"We are represented as wishing to force upon the churches a narrow CREED. Nothing was further from our mind. We do not consider that the demand for agreement to vital truths COMMON TO ALL Christians can be looked upon as a piece of sectarian bigotry. Here is a man, who is himself a Calvinist, who does not ask that a Union should draw up a Calvinistic creed, but only begs for one which will let the whole world know that brethren are associated as Christians, and that those who do not agree to the first principles of our faith will be intruders. Is this narrowness?"
-- The Sword and the Trowel, October 1888, page 563.
SPURGEON:
"My dear friends, after all, the main object of our ministry is the winning of souls to God.
. . . Though you have refused his invitation all these years, his bowels still yearn with compassion over you. He has spared your life until now; he has not cut down the old cumber-ground yet.
Sinner, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.
. . .May each one of us now pray the prayer of the penitent thief upon the cross, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom!” Amen.
(Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 48, Sermon # 2811).
Do you see how different was Spurgeon's approach and emphasis as to Calvinism when contrasted to the modern Top Heavy "Reformed" approach such as you represent?
If you really want to help those seminary students, you should be sending them copies of the book, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SPURGEON. They would be helped to get a good grip on the Gospel of Christ. See our website for the description:
http://members.aol.com/
pilgrimpub/2274book.htm
SUPPORT HATERS?
scott said . . .
I will say again that you are not a " Confessional Calvinist" because of your actions and support of "Open" Calvinism haters.
You are again wrong:
(1) My "actions and support" have not been for anyone but our Baptist champions and our Confessions of Faith, or the Gospel for which they stood.
(2) You can't name a SINGLE "'Open' Calvinism hater" I have supported.
(3) I do support anyone who preaches the Gospel, whether he is a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist -- just as Spurgeon did.
Your sect repudiates men like . L. Moody, whom Spurgeon not only supported, but had him hold meetings at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Would you have a Moody to hold a meeting for you?
SCOTT'S DUPLICITY?
scott said . . .
I will say again that you are not a "Confessional Calvinist" because of your actions and support of "Open" Calvinism haters.
Bob to Charles:
For almost a month, Charles, Dr. Al Mohler has featured at the very top of his Conventional Thinking website the item entitled, "Frank Page at Southern Seminary."
http://www.conventionalthinking.
net/home.php
You will recall that Dr. Frank Page, SBC President, wrote a small book against "Calvinism." He not only rejects Calvinism, he wrote a book against it.
Frank Page has also spoken out publicly against Calvinism.
Does Dr. Page qualify as an "Open Calvinism hater" according to Scott Morgan?
On the other hand, I have never in my life written against Creedal Calvinism, nor spoken out publicly against it.
Yet who does Scott Morgan choose to criticize -- Bob Ross or Al Mohler?
Is this not rather duplicitous on Scott's part?
As for Mohler's running this item for a month on his website, is he "politicking," seeking to get some advantage by courting the President of the SBC? Or is he trying to show that he is not such a Top Heavy Calvinist that he will refrain from inviting anti-Calvinists to the Seminary?
Also, why do both Mohler and Scott Morgan critize Joel Osteen even though Joel has never written or spoken against Calvinism, yet Dr. Page, the anti-Calvinist, is honored by being invited by Mohler to preach at the Seminary despite his anti-Calvinism -- and Scott remains silent about it?
MISPLACED ZEAL?
scott said . . .
Maybe we can tell the people that they are being mislead on SBC historical theology and correct views on Calvinism.
If you were half as zealous to convert sinners as you are zealous to convert seminary students to Calvinism, you would probably see some of the "elect" in your community come to Christ and be saved under your ministry.
What you are trying to do now is to proselyte to Calvinism those who came to Christ under
"Arminian" ministries, just as you were brought to Christ. Once you proselyte them to Calvinism, then they can also take up proselyting instead of evangelizing the lost.
I hope you don't successfully proselyte them all, for then who would be left to win the elect to Christ?
C. H. Spurgeon said:
" . . . the main business is to preach Jesus who came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. . . This simple truth, that “Jesus Christ has come to seek and to save that which is lost,” and that “whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life,” must be your jewel, your treasure, your life.[From The Great Mystery of Godliness, MTP Vol. 13, Year 1867, 1 Timothy 3:16]
Spurgeon's "philosophy of ministry"
seems to differ somewhat with that of your former Pastor, Roy Hargrave, of whom his website says,"Evangelism is important to him, but it is not the priority of his ministry."
This is one of the aberrancies of Top Heavy Hybrid Calvinism -- failure to give Evangelism its proper place (Mark 16:15, 16).
You seem to be far more zealous to try to make proselytes to Calvinism than you appear to be interested in seeking and saving lost souls, like Jesus and Spurgeon.
Will Scott Morgan Debate?
Brother Bob Ross said to Brother Scott Morgan,
If you don't want to debate me in Georgia because of the fear of "losing face," then I invite you to come to Pasadena, and we will debate here. You can stay in my home and I will furnish your meals. We will video tape the debate for the benefit of those who can't attend. Here is your chance to do a great work in behalf of Hybrid Calvinism.
Brother Scott, that sounds like a good deal for you. Meals included!
I don't see a debate between the two of you happening, because you know Brother Bob would mop up the floor with you as he already has on this blog many times.
This is a very gracious offer from Brother Bob. What are you going to do, Scott?
Given the history of unchristian like conduct from hybrid/neo/extreme/hyper Calvinists such as James White about debate negotiations, I will not post on this blog any negotiations you may have. You will need to contact Brother Bob directly through email if you want to accept and work out the arrangements. I will check with him from time to time to see if you have accepted.
In the future, I will let our readers know if you have accepted Brother Bob's gracious offer or if you are more mouth than backbone.
Charles
ANOTHER "CALVINIST" SURVEY, PLEASE
Bob to Charles:
You know, Charles, that a recent survey of over 400 SBC preachers said that 10% of them [about 41) said they were "5 point Calvinists."
Baptist Press reported, "Surveying 413 pastors, the July/August 2006 LifeWay Research survey asked Southern Baptist pastors to indicate their position concerning the following question: 'Do you consider yourself a five-point Calvinist?'
"LifeWay Research found that 10 percent of Southern Baptist pastors consider themselves five-point Calvinists." http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23993
I wish the Survey had included the following question:
Were you converted under the ministry of a Five Point Calvinist or under the ministry of some other category of theological identity?
I dare say, Charles, if 2% of the 413 was converted under Five Pointers, I would be surprised.
DEBATE WITH SCOTT?
charles said . . .
Brother Scott, that sounds like a good deal for you. Meals included!
I don't see a debate between the two of you happening, because you know Brother Bob would mop up the floor with you as he already has on this blog many times.
Scott would have to bring his own Kudze for making salads, as we do not seem to have any Kudzu around here.
As for "mopping" the floor with Brother Scott, I have tried to be very cordial and respectful toward those I have debated as "persons," but it is another matter for their doctrinal errors.
I think it would be relatively easy to "do in" the aberrant Hybrid Calvinism for which Scott contends. Rather than a mere "mopping" of the floor, how about a complete demolition of his "house built on the sand"?
I forgot to mention it, but Scott can also bring along James White, Tom Nettles, Tom Ascol, or any other assistants.
A PROJECT FOR SCOTT?
Bob to Charles:
I wonder, Charles, if Scott Morgan would find out how many of those seminary students he is contacting were converted under "Five Point Calvinists"?
Do you suppose that even "10%" of them were saved under "Five Point Calvinist" preaching?
I would not be surprised if more than 90% of them have what Scott regards as "Arminian" roots.
Most of them probably made professions faith in connection with public invitations, like the critics of "public invitations" -- such as Michael Spencer and Fred Zaspel -- or at an "altar," like the gentleman who was responsible for establishing "The Banner of Truth Trust" in England.
Mr. D. J. W. Cullum, the man who first proposed establishing the Banner of Truth Trust, and whose wealth made the Banner of Truth Trust an establishment, was himself converted in what would be viewed as an "altar" type circumstance.
The Banner of Truth of July 1971, has a short bio of Mr. Cullum, a multimillionaire, and it says that "it was while kneeling at a morning service in St. George's Cathedral, Jerusalem on Christmas Day, that he received assurance of his salvation in Jesus Christ" (page 2, issue #93).
It would be interesting to know just how many of thse stdents were led to Christ by "Five Point Calvinists."
i, like spurgeon, was saved due to the influence of a couple of arminians. also, the Lord used some plain, ole southern baptists to influence me as well. i dont remember any five pointers, or nearly hyper calvinists, witnessing to me, nor having any part in my coming to Christ.
the only thing that the five pointers i have been around, and they have been many, from dr. nettles down to some seminary buddies...the only thing i saw them really interested in was converting other christians to five pointism. and, if you would not convert, then you were not as spiritual, nor as intellectual, as they were.
i just hope and pray that these nearly hyper calvinists will preach the gospel more so that more people will be elected.
volfan007
Spurgeon on salvation:
Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual life—no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good. Wooings were lost upon me—warnings were cast to the wind—thunders were despised; and as for the whispers of His love, they were rejected as being less than nothing and vanity. But, sure I am, I can say now, speaking on behalf of myself, "He only is my salvation." It was He who turned my heart, and brought me down on my knees before Him.
I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love.
Yea, when He first came to me, did I not spurn Him? When He knocked at the door, and asked for entrance, did I not drive Him away, and do despite to His grace? Ah, I can remember that I full often did so until, at last, by the power of His effectual grace, He said, "I must, I will come in;" and then He turned my heart, and made me love Him. But even till now I should have resisted Him, had it not been for His grace. Or, in other words, regeneration produced faith.
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus.
If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!
All quotes from Spurgeon's "A Defense of Calvinism" Chapter 13 in volume 1 of his autobiography.
Spurgeon clearly believed not only that God had to change his heart before he would believe, but also that Christ's atonement was "particular" to the elect. To paint the Founder's as misappropriating Spurgeon reveals a lack of understanding of Spurgeon's theology.
Spurgeon taught faith as a gift given by the Holy Spirit through "renewed" (regenerated) human nature.
At the same time, this faith, wherever it exists, is in every case, without exception, the gift of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. Never yet did a man believe in Jesus with the faith here intended, except the Holy Spirit led him to do so. He has wrought all our works in us, and our faith too. Faith is too celestial a grace to spring up in human nature till it is renewed: faith is in every believer "the gift of God."
C.H. Spurgeon - Sermon 979: March 5, 1871
WITNESSING & "CALVINISTS"
volfan007 said...
i, like spurgeon, was saved due to the influence of a couple of arminians. also, the Lord used some plain, ole southern baptists to influence me as well. i dont remember any five pointers, or nearly hyper calvinists, witnessing to me, nor having any part in my coming to Christ.
I have been acquainted with a wide variety of Calvinists since the 1950s, and unfortunately, based on my observations, your experience is rather common.
Seems like most of the witnessing and soul-winning efforts are done in this age by those who are not regarded by Calvinists as being Calvinists.
Generally, Calvinists I've known seem to be somewhat reluctant witnesses, apparently out of concern that they might get one of the "non-elect" to profess faith in Christ.
One of the reasons some of them use for not giving public invitations is that they don't want to somehow encourage a false profession. They don't seem to be familiar with that Scripture which says, "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).
In this matter, these types of Calvinists do not authentically represent Creedal Calvinism, which calls for the Gospel to be preached to every creature, all men to be called to repentance, and all men to be urged to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" -- like it was done by C. H. Spurgeon.
Yes, some may give "lip service" to this, but their practice is not so consistent with what they profess.
The Reformed "baby regenerationist" heresy about "born again before faith" has infected many, if not most, of those in our time who profess to be "Reformed" or "Calvinist."
From appearances, it seems these types would prefer to proselyte a Christian to Presbyerian
"Reformed" theology than to convert one of the "elect" to Christ. Notice how Scott Morgan is donating free books to zealously try to disseminate Calvinism to Baptist seminary students, when Scott has hundreds of lost souls in his own neighborhood in Georgia who need to be evangelized with the Gospel. Scott seems to be more excited about making a Christian a Calvinist than about evangelizing the unsaved in his neighborhood.
But this is just typical of many of those infatuated with "Reformed" theology. I have heard or read many of their testimonies -- how they were saved under "Arminian" ministries, but later they "saw the light" on the "doctrines of grace" -- and the latter experience seemed to dampen their appreciation for the evangelism by which they were won to Christ, and so they don't have much interest in evangelizing the lost.
It ought not to be. Whether one is theoretically "Arminian" or "Calvinist" as to theology, the Christian's "main business" (as Spurgeon called it) is evangelizing the lost souls of this world (Mark 16:15, 16).
SPURGEON'S REMARKS CONSIDERED
taliesin said...
Bob to Taliesin:
You say, Taliesin, you are quoting Spurgeon from "Chapter 13 in volume 1 of his autobiography."
Actually, your pieced-together material is from the abridgment produced by the Banner of Truth Trust. It seems the Banner men are always trying to create Spurgeon in their own image.
The original, unedited material is in Chapter 16 of the Autobiography, republished from unabridged by Pilgrim Publications.
SPURGEON'S REMARKS
taliesin said...
You say, Taliesin, you are quoting Spurgeon from "Chapter 13 in volume 1 of his autobiography."
Actually, your patched-together material is from the abridgment produced by the Banner of Truth Trust.
The original, unedited material is in Chapter 16 of the Autobiography, republished from unabridged by Pilgrim Publications.
http://members.aol.com/
pilgrimpub/autobio.htm
You inserted the following words, which are not Spurgeon's -- which practice I have found to be somewhat of a habit of Founderites:
"Or, in other words, regeneration produced faith."
Spurgeon did not say that in Chapter 16 nor even in the Banner of Truth's chop-job.
But -- even if he had said it -- it would not mean what you evidently intend.
Such a statement would responsibly have to be understood in the light of everything Spurgeon believed and taught about the new birth -- and he did not hold to the "born again before faith" idea which is promoted by the Founders.
This has been demonstrated more than once on this blogsite where we have produced numerous quotations from Spurgeon, refuting both Scott Morgan and Gene Bridges. (See the Archives).
Spurgeon briefly defined
"Calvinism" in Chapter 16, page 172 of the Autobiography, as follows:
>>
If anyone should ask me what I
mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the
essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.”
>>
What Spurgeon says here is consistent with his statements elsewhere when he commends the preaching and ministries of others who were not theoretical Calvinists -- John Wesley, for example.
Notice the following quotation (again):
"Brethren, you may preach those doctrines as long as you like, and yet fail to preach the gospel; and I will go further, and affirm that some who have even denied those truths, to our great grief, have nevertheless been gospel preachers for all that, and God has saved souls by their ministry. . . Preach Christ, young man, if you want to win souls. Preach all the doctrines, too, for the building up of believers, but still the main business is to preach Jesus who came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. . . This simple truth, that “Jesus Christ has come to seek and to save that which is lost,” and that “whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life,” must be your jewel, your treasure, your life."
[Quotations above from sermon #786 — The Great Mystery of Godliness, MTP Vol 13, Year 1867, 1 Timothy 3:16]
Such statements -- which could be multiplied -- demonstrate that isolating a remark where Spurgeon said "there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism" must be considered in the light of his summarial or core definition of "Calvinism" -- that by "Calvinist" he means "one who says, Salvation is of the Lord."
Again, during the "Down Grade Controversy," Spurgeon wrote:
>>
"We care far more for the central evangelical truths than we do for Calvinism . . . Those who hold the eternal verities of salvation, and yet do not see all that we believe and embrace, are by no means the objects of our opposition. . . The present struggle is NOT A DEBATE upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. ALL WHO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL should unite against that "modern thought" which is its deadly enemy." -- The Sword and the Trowel, April 1887, pages 195, 196.
>>
This statement shows that Spurgeon did not confine "believing the Gospel" to acceptance of theoretical Calvinism. We have certainly never even implied that Spurgeon did not hold to theoretical Creedal Calvinism. Rather, what has been both implied and demonstrated is that Spurgeon's Calvinism is not the "Reformed" type of Calvinism advocated by many in our time, including the Founders.
We have thoroughly explored Spurgeon's view on the Divine origin of the experience of faith, and demonstrated that he held that faith and the New Birth are simultaneous, created in the sinner solely by the power of the Word and Spirit, according to the Baptist Confession on "Effectual Calling."
You can find this demonstated in our previous posts on this website. The sum of this is expressed by Spurgeon as follows:
>>
"The act of TRUSTING Jesus Christ is the act which brings a soul into a state of Grace . . . See, then, the FOLLY of persons talking about being regenerated who have no faith! It cannot be! It is IMPOSSIBLE! . . . WITHOUT FAITH THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION. -- Open Heart for A Great Saviour, C. H. SPURGEON, Sermon #669, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 12, 1866.
>>
Those who wish to read more on this particular issue are referred to the Flyswatter Archives wherein we have given many quotations from Spurgeon and also replied to misrepresentations by Hybrid Calvinists.
UNDERSTANDING SPURGEON
Taliesin said...
To paint the Founder's as misappropriating Spurgeon reveals a lack of understanding of Spurgeon's theology.
An understanding of Spurgeon's theology would involve Spurgeon's attitude as to the Calvinism-Arminianism theological issue, and on this we must take into consideration such things as --
(1) Spurgeon says he received the Gospel of his salvation from an Arminian preacher, in a Methodist church -- and,
(2) Though differing in theology with John Wesley, whom he called the "prince of the Arminians," he nevertheless regarded Wesley was "fit to be added" to the Apostles (Autobiography, Vol. 1, page 176) -- and,
(3) Spurgeon said he "cared far more for the central evangelical truths than for Calvinism."
My observation of the Founders has not detected this type of attitude, and I think it is because they do care far more for Calvinism as a system in contrast to Spurgeon.
A QUESTION FOR BRO. SCOTT
scott said . . .
Bob, did you notice how Spurgeon clearly says that if a man does not " Exalt" Election or teach a Particular Atonement . . . etc.
I wonder, Brother Scott, if you have called this to Dr. Al Mohler's attention?
As you know, Dr. Mohler has recently had Anti-Calvinist Dr. Frank Page to speak at the Seminary in Louisville, and he has praised Dr. Page on his website. He says it was a "great honor" to have Dr. Page speak at SBTS.
Yet Dr. Page does not agree with the views of Spurgeon, Mohler, the Founders, or Scott Morgan on Election and Particular Atonement. In fact, he opposes those views.
Don't you think you ought to set Dr. Mohler straight about this matter of Dr. Page's "heterodoxy"?
My question is, Scott:
WHO IS THE GREATER ENEMY OF CALVINISM -- DR. PAGE OR JOEL OSTEEN?
Dr. Page wrote a book against Calvinism, but I have never heard or read that Joel has ever even used the word "Calvinism," much less oppose it. In fact, I have heard Joel make a lot of statements on Sovereignty to which no Calvinist would take exception.
Yet you are frequently all up-in-the-air about Joel Osteen, but I don't hear you say anything objecting to Dr. Mohler's promoting Dr. Frank Page, the outspoken opponent of Calvinism.
Why do you seem to be so
"selective" with your criticisms?
Why, Scott, are the "legs of the lame" so unequal?
I also remind you that Dr. James Dobson is an outright Arminian member of the Nazarene Church -- probably "worse off" on theology than you would think of Dr. Page. Yet Dr. Mohler serves on Dr. Dobson's "Focus on the Family" Board.
Have you mentioned this obvious compromise to Dr. Mohler? Or, are all your objections confined to criticizing me and Joel Osteen?
I also remind you that Dr. Mohler is very much inclined to embellish and promote the "baby regenerationists" among the "Reformed," such as Dr. Sproul and other "pedos" I could name.
Are the "baby regenerationists" less dangerous than Joel Osteen, who only immerses believers in Christ after they have confessed Him as Lord and Saviour? Have you brought this to Dr. Mohler's attention?
I don't want to get you into trouble with the "higher ups," Scott, but don't you think your criticisms of me and Joel, plus your lack of criticism of Dr. Mohler, are rather something on the order of "straining at gnats and swallowing camels"?
AN EXAMPLE OF HERESY
ON "REGENERATION"
Bob to Charles:
I could go back into the Flyswatter Archives, Charles, and pull up quotations from some of the Hybrid Calvinists who have said they did not believe
that "pre-faith regeneration" involved the idea that there were e "regenerated" people who were walking about still in unbelief.
Instead of digging up those quotes, I will simply reproduce the words of an email I received this morning from a Hybrid Calvinist Pastor named Ken Wimer of Shreveport, Louisiana. This demonstrates the "born again before faith" Hybrid Calvinist heresy advocated by the "Reformed" and by the "Hardshell" Baptists who deny that faith and the new birth are simultaneous:
WIMER says:
>>
In the narrative of the Ethiopian Eunuch we see this illustrated, Acts 8: 27-39. Many preach that it was when Philip spoke the Word to him that he was regenerated. However, it is evident that the Spirit was already at work in him giving him the desire to go to Jerusalem, seek the truth, and even procure the Scriptures, and read them before the Lord even caused his path to cross with Philip. The understanding of Isaiah 53, the believing, and water baptism were all subsequent to a heart already regenerated.
>>
Here you see, Charles, that the Hybrid Calvinist believes that the Eunuch was riding along already "born again" before Philip even came to him and, of course, before the Eunuch had heard and believed in Jesus Christ.
The Eunuch did not even know who Jesus Christ was, yet he was already "born again," according to this Hybrid Calvinist! The "Word," therefore, was not used by the Holy Spirit as the instrumental cause of the new birth, according to Wimer.
This is contrary to our Baptist Confession which teaches that the new birth is accomplished by BOTH the Word of God as the instrumental cause and the Holy Spirit as the efficient cause, producing faith in Christ for salvation.
Mr. Ross, thank you for your time to reply.
In your response you stated: We have thoroughly explored Spurgeon's view on the Divine origin of the experience of faith, and demonstrated that he held that faith and the New Birth are simultaneous, created in the sinner solely by the power of the Word and Spirit, according to the Baptist Confession on "Effectual Calling."
To support this you cited a quote from Sermon #669. I affirm what you quoted from Spurgeon whole-heartedly. As he notes in the sermon:
You might as well ask whether in the human body there is first the circulation of the blood or the heaving of the lungs; both are essential ingredients in life, and must come at the same time.
The Founder's nor I assert any difference in time between regeneration and faith. The question is not a matter of time but a logical necessity put forward in the Scriptures. Notice what Spurgeon later says in the same sermon (#669, point III; the start of the fourth paragraph):
Now, I think I hear some troubled conscience saying, “When you said just now that if I trusted in Christ I should be saved, I rejoiced, but when you say we must be born again, that saying seems so mysterious that I am troubled.” My dear friend, there is no need to be troubled. If you trust in Christ then you are born again. I have already told you that there is no possibility of a soul ever relying upon the Savior truly unless there has been a previous new birth to produce his faith.
We cannot, he says, have faith unless there has been a new birth to produce this faith. I'm not sure how he could state it more plainly.
You mention that Spurgeon spoke well of Wesley, and he did. But he also spoke well of Whitefield, who, in your words would be a "baby regenerationist." Wesley also denied eternal security and taught that a believer could lose their salvation and go into eternal punishment. We do not agree with everything taught by those whom we might otherwise respect.
So, two things: (1) Like Spurgeon, I greatly respect all those who preach the gospel. But I also like Spurgeon think that we need to wrestle with the fullness of what God has revealed. Which means:
(2) Spurgeon, while an interesting Godly man is not really the source of my doctrine. I came to a Reformed understanding of salvation the same way I came to faith, through the Scriptures. I see questions here about what kind of ministry under which did you come to faith. I posit that we all come to faith not under a Calvinist, Arminian, or any other ministry except the ministry of Word of God through the power of the Holy Spirit (for me personally this is literal - reading the Scriptures apart from attending a church).
But let there be no doubt that in the sermon you cited, Spurgeon clearly states: "there is no possibility of a soul ever relying upon the Savior truly unless there has been a previous new birth to produce his faith."
DEBATE IN LYNCHBURG APPARENTLY CALLED OFF
Bob to Charles:
According to the "Jack Daniels" of Hybrid Calvinist brew -- James "White Lightnin'" White -- there will be no debate with the Caner brothers in Lynchburg, Virginia at Jerry Falwell's "Arminian" compound.
Of course, Charles, it's all the Caners' fault, according to Apostle James.
They have "reneged" on the agreement, James alleges. I have not seen any comments from the other side as yet, but if we can believe the Great Distiller of the "Born Again Before Faith" intoxicant, the Caners and their Moderator have made it necessary for James and Tom Ascol to cancel the debate due to "certain fundamental issues of fairness that we simply cannot allow to be trampled."
Well, we knew all along that if the debate did not come to pass, it would not be Great Exegeeter's' fault, didn't we?
May I volunteer? . . . that if James still wants to have a debate on "Baptists and Calvinism," I will be happy to attempt to satisfy his penchant. Just let me know the time, place, and proposition, and I will see if I can be there. He can set all the grounds rules, etc. What are the chances?
WHITE WHINE AGAIN
Bob to Charles:
I listened to James White on the recording on his website, and you never heard such whining in all your born days. One might think White had lost his rabbit's foot, he whines so much.
Caner is described by a blogger on the Founders' blog as characterized by a "lack of exegetical ability and his total lack of understanding of both Baptist church history and Calvinism," yet James White and Tom Ascol evidently don't think they can handle their case in a 2-hour format?
SPURGEON MISCONSTRUED
Taliesin said...
The Founder's nor I assert any difference in time between regeneration and faith. The question is not a matter of time but a logical necessity put forward in the Scriptures.
I suppose you do not claim to "officially" speak for the Founders, but if you are personally saying that faith and regeneration are SIMULTANEOUS, then we are happy to have your agreement on this.
We believe faith is of God, created or given by the Holy Spirit's using the instrumentality of the Word of God, and that at the birth of faith by the Word and Spirit, the sinner is born again (1 John 5:4).
If that is your view, then we share the same view on the origin of faith.
You also quote Spurgeon from his great sermon, "Open Heart for the Great Saviour," one of my favorites against the Hybrid Calvinist heresy of "born again before faith." But I believe you must have misconstrued what Spurgeon said.
You focus on Spurgeon's statement --
"I have already told you that there is no possibility of a soul ever relying upon the Savior truly unless there has been a previous new birth to produce his faith.
We certainly agree with Spurgeon, for Spurgeon -- in context -- is assuring one who is aleady a believer, but has a "troubled conscience" about his condition.
Spurgeon assures this troubled believer of the fact that his present faith is evidence that he has had a "previous new birth." He would not be a believer if he had not been previously born again by the means of the Word and Spirit. I agree with Spurgeon on this.
The Holy Spirit, using the Word of God (1 Peter 1:23; 1 Cor. 4:15; James 1:18), "produced" that previous faith and this is what constitutes the new birth (1 John 5:4).
In an earlier part of that same sermon, Spurgeon made it clear that faith and the new birth are simultaneous. He said:
"It is perfectly true that the work of salvation lies first and mainly in Jesus receiving sinners to himself, to pardon, to cleanse, to sanctify, to preserve, to make perfect; but, AT THE SAME TIME, the sinner also receives Christ; there is an act on the sinner’s part by which, being constrained by divine grace, he openeth his heart to the admission of Jesus Christ, and Jesus enters in, and thenceforth
dwells in the heart, and reigns and rules there. To a gracious readiness of heart to entertain the friend who knocks at the door, we are brought by God the Holy Ghost, and then he sups with us and we with him. . . .
The question was once mooted in an assembly of divines as to whether a person first had faith or regeneration, and it was suggested that it was a question which must for ever be unanswerable; that the process, if such it be, must be SIMULTANEOUS; that no sooner does the divine life come into the soul than it believes on Christ."
(Sermon #669, pages 13, 21).
I have given several quotes from Spurgeon, which are available in the Flyswatter archives, which show that Spurgeon believed the Divine life comes into the soul by the Spirit's use of the Word of God producing faith.
Here is a quote from the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 40, sermon #2386, page 530:
>>
There are philosophical difficulties about this matter of simple faith and salvation by it, and of the Spirit’s work and the necessity for it; but, practically, there is no difficulty at all, for the man who believes in Christ Jesus is born again, and every man who is born again believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. The two things come TOGETHER, live together, and are perfected together.
>>
Another:
>>
And what is this Word? What is it that usually brings men to be BEGOTTEN UNTO A NEW LIFE? The Word, the especial QUICKENING WORD, is the preaching of the doctrine of the cross" (page 532, Vol. 57).
>>
Spurgeon says, "Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life."
And whereas there are some pre-faith operations in the sinner by the Holy Spirit, Spurgeon says the sinner is "not saved" at this preliminary stage of the Spirit's work.
Notice --
MTP, Sermon #656 on PREVENIENT GRACE --
>>
Now let me show you how God's grace does come to work on the human heart so as to make it good soil before the living seed is cast into it, so that before quickening grace really visits it the heart may be called a good heart, because it is prepared to receive that grace.
I think this takes place thus: first of all, before quickening grace comes, God often gives an attentive ear, and makes a man willing to listen to the Word. Not only does he like to listen to it, but he wants to know the meaning of it; there is a little excitement in his mind to know what the gospel tidings really are. He is not saved as yet, but it is always a hopeful sign when a man is willing to listen to the truth, and is anxious to understand it. This is one thing which prevenient grace does in making the soul good.
In Ezekiel's vision, as you will recollect, before the breath came from the four winds the bones began to stir, and they came together bone to his bone. So, before the Spirit of God comes to a man in effectual calling, God's grace often comes to make a stir in the man's mind, so that he is no longer indifferent to the truth, but is anxious to understand what it means.
>>
Here is more from Spurgeon: (Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).
"Faith is the eye which sees. But without that eye we are blind and can have no fellowship with God in those Sacred Truths which only faith can perceive. Faith is the hand of the soul, and without it, we have no grasp of eternal things. If I were to mention all the images by which faith is set forth, each one would help you to see that you must have faith in order to know God and enter into converse with Him.
"It is only by faith that we can recognize God, approach Him, speak to Him, hear Him, feel His Presence and be delighted with His perfections. He that has not faith is toward God as one dead. And Jehovah is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
"The communion of the living God goes not forth toward death and corruption. His fellowship is with those who have spiritual life, a life akin to His own. Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life.
"And so the man who has no faith can no more commune with the living God and give Him pleasure, than can a stick or a stone, a horse or an ox, hold converse with the human mind."
As can be seen from Spurgeon's "Soul Winner" book, while all efficient power is attributed to the Holy Spirit, Spurgeon always has "means" being used as the Spirit's
"instrumentality" in creating faith.
Spurgeon says, "Instruction by the gospel is the commencement of all real work upon men's minds" (page 17, Pilgrim edition).
"He works by means" (page 25), Spurgeon says, and "Paul compares himself both to a father and to a mother in the matter of the new birth" (page 25).
"Such mysterious power doth God infuse into the instrumentality which He ordains" (page 26), "we regard ourselves as used by the Holy Ghost . . . the marvels of regeneration which attend our ministry" (page 27), "He quicken(s) them by the gospel" (page 28), and "The production of faith is the very centre of the target at which you aim" (page 29).
So wrote Spurgeon, and likewise what he preached.
So Spurgeon's view is that regeneration neither preceeds faith nor follows after faith -- rather, regeneration is the very creation of faith itself.
When one is made a believer of the Gospel of Christ by the instrumentality of the Word and the efficient power of the Holy Spirit, he IS THEN born again -- not before, and not after faith, but at the same instant of faith in Christ -- which faith has been created by instrumentality of the Gospel thru the power of the Holy Spirit, NOT by the power of the WILL OF MAN (John 1:12, 12).
If a man were regenerated BEFORE faith, at the point of regeneration he would be a "regenerated (born again) unbeliever."
If he were regenerated AFTER faith, at the point of faith he would be an unregenerated believer.
Neither of these is consistent with Scripture (1 John 5:12). Both ideas are spiritual non-existants.
Spurgeon said:
"If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate" (Warrant of Faith, #531, page 532).
More quotations of this kind from Spurgeon are available in the Flyswatter archives.
"REFORMED" IN SCRIPTURE?
Taliesin said...
I have met a number of Campbellite preachers in public debates, and they all assure me that they got their doctrine from the Scriptures, too.
Frankly, I don't think I ever met a Hardshell or some other false teacher who did not make the same claim. You do not score any "points" by following their example.
If you found "Reformed" doctrine in Scripture, you must be reading "Scriptures" I have never read. I know you can find it in Berkhof, Shedd, Sproul, White, and their disciples, etc., but you won't find "born again before faith" in the Word of God.
CONVERTING MINISTRIES?
taliesin said . . .
I see questions here about what kind of ministry under which did you come to faith. I posit that we all come to faith not under a Calvinist, Arminian, or any other ministry except the ministry of Word of God through the power of the Holy Spirit
If you believe this, then I assume you recognize the fact that the theoretical and systematic "systems of theology" and the "ordo salutis" palabber of the alleged "scholars" and "theologians" are not as significant for practical purposes as the "Reformed" or Hybrid Calvinists would have us believe.
The most significant matter is preaching the Gospel to the lost, not persuading people of either Arminian theology or Calvinistic theology, or of the darling "shibboleth" of what the "Reformed" call the "ordo salutis."
This is why the "Reformed" sect of our time is aberrant: it makes its version of "Calvinism" more significant than Gospel preaching -- at least as I have observed it.
There is a greater emphasis by the "Reformed" camp on promoting "the doctrines of grace" (as defined by the modern "Reformed") than on preaching the Gospel of grace to lost souls. There is more emphasis on a proper theological view about "the doctrine of election" than there is emphasis on preaching the Gospel to bring the "elect" to Christ.
We have cited the fact that it appears to us that most of today's Hybrid Calvinists or the "Reformed" were actually converted under what they now call "Arminians" or "non-Calvinists" -- which, if that is the case, implies that the "non-Calvinists" ministries are used more prominently by Divine Providence to practically or instrumentally reach the "elect" with the Gospel than are reached by the professed advocates of "Calvinism" -- especially those whom Spurgeon said are "exceedingly strong in their Calvinism."
And the fact is, the primary advocates of Hybrid Calvinism -- the "baby regenerationists" -- claim that the "elect" are "born again" either (1) before they are born or (2) in their early infancy.
If that is so, then these "born again elect" babies HAVE NO NEED of ever being born again under Gospel ministries, for they were allegedly "born again" in infancy or even earlier in the womb.
This is the view taught by those prominent among the "Reformed," including Shedd, Berkhof, Banner of Truth, Sproul, Frame, Grudem, and others of the "pedo" persuasion, including those "pedos" who are "buddies" of Al Mohler, Tom Nettles, Tom Ascol, Mark Dever, and the Founders.
______________________
SPURGEON ON NEW BIRTH
taliesin said...
I affirm what you quoted from Spurgeon whole-heartedly.
If you, Taliesin, affirm the former quotation from Spurgeon, will you also affirm this one:
>>
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).
I do not recall that we could get an "Amen" from either Scott Morgan or Gene Bridges on the above quotation. They both have tried to distort Spurgeon and make him a "born again before faith" Hybrid Calvinist. They seemed to set it aside this and other quotations in lieu of their phantasmagorical
"interpretations" of some other quotations.
I hope you can affirm it.
You focus on Spurgeon's statement --
"I have already told you that there is no possibility of a soul ever relying upon the Savior truly unless there has been a previous new birth to produce his faith.
We certainly agree with Spurgeon, for Spurgeon -- in context -- is assuring one who is aleady a believer, but has a "troubled conscience" about his condition.
Spurgeon assures this troubled believer of the fact that his present faith is evidence that he has had a "previous new birth." He would not be a believer if he had not been previously born again by the means of the Word and Spirit. I agree with Spurgeon on this.
But Spurgeon does not merely say this. He says that faith is produced by the new birth. Faith is evidence of the new birth because the new birth is necessary for saving faith to be present.
And it is simultaneous because every soul that is regenerate immediately believes. So I agree with Spurgeon's statements in this regard as well. There is no man walking around regenerated without faith, just as there is no man walking around with faith but not regenerate.
In other words, when you write this: So Spurgeon's view is that regeneration neither preceeds faith nor follows after faith -- rather, regeneration is the very creation of faith itself. you reverse Spurgeon's order. You say faith produces regeneration. The correct statement from what Spurgeon says is that regeneration neither preceeds faith nor follows after faith - rather faith is the very creation of regeneration. This is what Spurgeon says because regeneration produces faith.
Truly regeneration and thus faith are brought to the lost soul by the working of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word of God. And the Spirit may (and most often does) influence the unbeliever for some period of time before regenerating him. Some men may never be brought to faith, but may still be benefited for a time by the working of the Holy Spirit (Heb 6:4-6). But some the Spirit regenerates, and that regeneration immediately produces faith.
So, sir, should you choose to reject me as a false teacher (I am trying to be kind in this discussion, and am saddened that it is not reciprocated), then you must also assign the same title to Mr. Spurgeon, who clearly taught that that there is no possibility of a soul ever relying upon the Savior truly unless there has been a previous new birth to produce his faith.
"LOGICAL NECESSITY"?
Taliesin said...
The question is not a matter of time but a logical necessity put forward in the Scriptures.
This is one of the errors of the Hybrid Calvinist -- arguing from an alleged "logic" rather than the Word of God.
When Christ raised dead Lazarus, He used His creative WORD. The same was true with Ezekiel's "dry bones."
This is the same way it is with raising the "dead" sinner. Our Confession of Faith says it is by the WORD AND SPIRIT, not by a supposed "pre-faith new birth."
This is one of the errors of the Hybrid Calvinist -- arguing from an alleged "logic" rather than the Word of God.
But you are arguing from logical necessity as well. On the one hand you write: regeneration neither preceeds faith nor follows after faith -- rather, regeneration is the very creation of faith itself. This states that regeneration is dependent on faith, yet elsewhere you write that they all start together. My argument is too that they all start together, but that it is regeneration that produces faith (Mr. Spurgeon's word).
If we wish to know what Spurgeon believes about faith and regeneration, what better place to look than in his sermon #979, which he called "Faith and Regeneration". Mr. Spurgeon said At the same time, this faith, wherever it exists, is in every case, without exception, the gift of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. Never yet did a man believe in Jesus with the faith here intended, except the Holy Spirit led him to do so. (first point, fourth paragraph)
Then, after quoting from "Just as I Am" he says I do not believe in Jesus because I am persuaded that his blood was shed for me, but rather I discover that his blood was shed especially for me from the fact that I have been led to believe in him.
In the second point, at the end of the first paragraph he writes Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man.
So, according to Mr. Spurgeon, faith is the result of the new birth. It cannot exist but in a soul that is regenerate.
So he has said that regeneration produces faith and faith is the result of regeneration. Unless you can find new meanings for produces and result Mr. Spurgeon is clearly teaching the priority of regeneration.
CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
taliesin said...
You say, Taliesin, in one breath that faith and regeneration are "simultaneous," yet I seem to get another message elsewhere that you want us to believe that "regeneration" precedes faith, as the Hybrid Calvinists teach. Is that it?
In the quote from Spurgeon, Spurgeon said that in the case of that "troubled believer" whom he mentions, that there "had been a previous new birth to produce his faith."
You can spine this as you like but I interpret Spurgeon based on everything he teaches on the new birth, and "born again before faith" is not a part of his teaching. He never has one born again before faith, so far as I can find.
No one here understand that Spurgeon did not teach that faith is produced when the Spirit brings about the new birth by the instrumental means of the Word, but we do not understand that Spurgeon taught that one if "born again before faith." He did teach that the Spirit does work in the sinner before faith, but he did teach that this constituted the new birth. In fact, he expressly denied that, as we have shown.
The Sum of his teaching, as we believe we find it, is that "the true life of a soul lies in Christ Jesus Jesus and COMES to that soul through FAITH." (See reference below).
In the quote you give from Spurgeon, I understand that Spurgeon is simply referring back to the fact that this "troubled believer" would not have his current faith if he had not already been born again in the past, for one can't have one (faith) without having the other (new birth), as Spurgeon says:
"THE MAIN MATTER" -- or, SPURGEON vs HYBRID CALVINISTS
By C. H. Spurgeon, Volume 27, #1631:
>>
That memorable third chapter [of John] concerning Nicodemus, shows us how that enquiring master of Israel came to believe in him; and how the Lord was revealed to Nicodemus as both the sent one and the Son, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” . . .
My dear hearer, your immediate conversion to faith in the Lord Jesus is the object of this book. . . . He is the Son of God . . . accept it for yourself . . . Accept Jesus as he is set forth, for to “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
>>
Notice that Spurgeon is exhorting one to "accept Jesus" and thereby be saved, or born again, quoting John 1:12, 13. Faith and becoming a son of God go together.
Spurgeon goes on:
>>
The faith which receives Christ as he is revealed as the Messiah, and as the Son of God, is the faith which hath eternal life, and the Scriptures are written that you may have this faith. . . .
The true LIFE of a soul lies in Christ Jesus and COMES TO THAT SOUL THROUGH FAITH IN HIM. . . . The life of Christ is infused into them by the Spirit of the living God, even as the Lord Jesus hath testified:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” . . .
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. . .
Do not worry yourself, therefore, about that; if you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and are resting in him, it is well with you. . . . Faith in Jesus BEGETS LIFE, and this life will flourish or decay very much in proportion to our faith. . . . This sacred Book was written on purpose to make you believe; the Spirit is given to lead you to believe; the object of every preaching of the gospel is that you may believe; therefore come and welcome, and at this hour believe on the one saving name, and live thereby. God grant it for his name’s sake. Amen.
>>
So, contrary to the "born again before faith" heresy, Spurgeon says that "LIFE [new birth] COMES WITH BELIEVING."
Not "before" believing, nor "after" believing, but "WITH BELIEVING."
This is the new birth produced by the Holy Spirit in which faith is produced in that very work and at the same time.
And the Lord is the Author and Finisher of that faith, by the instrumental means of the Word and by the efficient power of the Holy Spirit.
Spurgeon:
>>
The act of TRUSTING Jesus Christ is the act which brings a soul into a state of Grace . . .
See, then, the FOLLY of persons talking about being regenerated who have no faith! It cannot be! It is IMPOSSIBLE! . . . WITHOUT FAITH THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION.
-- Open Heart for A Great Saviour, C. H. SPURGEON, Sermon #669, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 12, 1866:
>>
>>
"This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith."
What, then, does faith overcome the world in persons who are not saved? How can this be possible when the apostle saith that that which overcomes the world is born of God? Read the fourth verse:
"Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world:"
but faith overcomes the world.
therefore the man who has faith is regenerate;
and what means that but that he is saved, and that his faith is the instrument by which he achieves victories. (MTP, Volume 17, page 142).
>>
MORE MISCONSTRUING OF SPURGEON?
taliesin said . . .
Unless you can find new meanings for produces and result Mr. Spurgeon is clearly teaching the priority of regeneration.
Again, you evidently are desperately trying to impose avery "narrow" understanding of the "meanings" of words upon Spurgeon's remarks.
Spurgeon never said that by the words "produces" and "result" he meant the "priority of regeneration," to faith, making the new birth exist prior to the Spirit's creating faith by the Word of God in the sinner.
We agree with Spurgeon that faith is produced and is the result of the Holy Spirit's work in the new birth by the Spirit's use of the instrumental means of the Word of God. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God," "Begotten by the Word," etc. (1 Pet. 1:23; 1 Cor. 4:15; James 1:18; 1 John 5:4).
Spurgeon taught that "Not a grain of faith exists in all the world except that which He has Himself created" (MTP, 33, page 279). We agree with Spurgeon, that all true faith is of God's creation by or thru the Word.
Furthemore, Spurgeon said, "We lived by looking, we live still by looking. FAITH is STILL the MEDIUM by which LIFE COMES to us from the life-giving Lord" (MTP, Vol. 17, page 1).
You seem to be saying that the new birth comes BEFORE faith, whereas we understand Spurgeon to teach that God-created "faith" is the "MEDIUM" or channel "by which life comes to us."
But he did not say that the new birth takes place before faith.
FALSE TEACHER?
taliesin said . . .
So, sir, should you choose to reject me as a false teacher (I am trying to be kind in this discussion, and am saddened that it is not reciprocated) . . .
I do not reject you as a false teacher beyond what it is on which you are falsely teaching.
If you teach "born again before faith," you are a false teacher on that.
If you teach that Spurgeon taught "born again before faith," you are a false teacher on that.
Also, you needn't toss in remarks about your kindness. I assume you are a kind man, but kind men can have an unkind distaste for others who conflict with their views. I have met many false teachers who were worse in their teaching than you, and yet they were kind men -- other than in their handling of the Word of God and properly representing others.
TWO "CREATORS"?
taliesin said . . .
But some the Spirit regenerates, and that regeneration immediately produces faith.
So you have (1) the Spirit "regenerating" and then (2) "regeneration" producing faith?
So you don't believe, then, that the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God in the act of regeneration itself . . . right?
This is exactly what we have been demonstrating to be the "baby regenerationist" doctrine as taught by Shedd, Berkhof and their fellow-Hybrid Calvinists. Shedd and Berkhof both plainly state that the Word is not "creative" in the new birth, or that the Spirit uses the Word in the act of regeneration -- and this is consistent with what you are saying. This doctrine of "born again before faith" is traced back to the "baby regenerationists" who concocted it as justification for their false doctrine that the infants of believers inherit "regeneration" as a blessing of the supposed "covenant." John Frame even claims that these "elect" babies get "regenerated" before they are born!
Like the "pedos," you have "regeneration" {new birth; born again] taking place without the Word as the instrumentality, and without faith as the "medium" (as Spurgeon called it). This is the same heresy adopted by the Hardshells in the 19th century to justify their anti-missionism, anti-evangelism philosophy.
Except in the mind of the Hybrid Calvinist, this contradicts passages such as John 3:14-18; Acts 16:30, 31; 1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18; Romans 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; Eph. 2:8-10; 1 John 5:4, 12.
THE KUDZU "DEBATER" AGAIN
scott said . . .
taliesin,
You are correct but what gets me is that Bob Ross calls himself a Confessional Calvinist.
What really "gets" you, Scott, is that you put your foot into your mouth and challenged me to a debate a few months back, and then pulled a "James White" about it.
You conveniently found an excuse to avoid living up to your word (like the Caners?) and so you refused to go thru with it -- ostensibly because you heard gossip from some of your Primitive Baptist Hardshell Baptist friends who told you that I am a really "bad" fellow.
Was that the same Hardshell preacher from around Canton and Marietta, who was "run off" from the Houston Grace Church pastored by Will Best? He came down to Houston and evidently lasted long enough to unload his furniture, then had to retreat back to Georgia.
I offered to debate you, and told you that you could get James White, Tom Nettles, Tom Ascol and anyone else to sit with you as your assistants -- yet the Hardshells persuaded you that I am such a "bad egg" that you decided not to debate me (that is, if you were ever even serious about a debate).
So I am "good enough" to have debated about 15 or more of the leading Campbellite debaters, but not "good enough" for Scott Morgan, eh?
Why don't you just get back to putting up the Kudzu preserves -- while you whine about Johnny Hunt and Jerry Vines -- something you are capable of handling.
BTW, what happened to darling AU? They looked like a bunch of Hyrid Calvinists trying to tackle Bad Bob Ross!
DR. MOHLER AND DR. AKIN, BEWARE?
Bob to Charles:
I read a Scott Morgan post at the "Flounders" Pity Party blog, Charles, which seemed to stoking the coals against Dr. Al Mohler and Dr. Danny Akin.
Today, I went back to cut-and-paste Scott's rantings, but somehow the post has disappeared. I suppose Tom Ascol had better judgment than to keep that post which appeared to be Scott's "breathing out threatenings" against the two SBC seminary presidents.
As I recall his comments, Scott is not at all happy with either Mohler or Akin allowing the likes of Dr. Frank "Anti-Calvism" Page to speak at the seminaries.
I just wonder if you saw that post, Charles, and if perhaps Scott would like to post his complaints about Mohler and Akin on the Flyswatter?
I would like for you see how "far out" Scott has gone, now even ready to scold Mohler and Akin about how they are running the seminaries.
WHAT IS SCOTT MORGAN UPSET ABOUT?
Brother Bob said, I just wonder if you saw that post, Charles, and if perhaps Scott would like to post his complaints about Mohler and Akin on the Flyswatter?
I didn't see it. Scott, what's bothering you about Mohler and Akin?
Charles
Bob wrote: Like the "pedos," you have "regeneration" {new birth; born again] taking place without the Word as the instrumentality, . . .
When I have already stated: I posit that we all come to faith not under a Calvinist, Arminian, or any other ministry except the ministry of Word of God through the power of the Holy Spirit (for me personally this is literal - reading the Scriptures apart from attending a church).
Scott, debate if you like, but I will allow my previous comments to stand against anything else Mr. Ross chooses to say and will follow the advice given here.
CONFUSION?
taliesin said . . .
When I have already stated: I posit that we all come to faith not under a Calvinist, Arminian, or any other ministry except the ministry of Word of God through the power of the Holy Spirit (for me personally this is literal - reading the Scriptures apart from attending a church).
One of us apparently is "confused."
You refer to "coming to faith" in the above words, but what about the "regeneration" part? I understand you have "regeneration" being enacted PRIOR to faith. What are the "means" in this "regeneration"?
I am referring to the "NEW BIRTH" (which INCLUDES faith) in relation to the ministry of the Word as an "instrumentality." I do not understand that they can be divided or separated, but are SIMULTANEOUS.
You teach, as I understand it, that faith is SUBSEQUENT to a prior "new birth," or that the "new birth" takes place BEFORE one actually believes.
Therefore, I understand that you hold the same idea as the "pedo" theory and Hardshell view -- that the "new birth" is accomplished by the Spirit alone, without the instrumentality of the Word producing faith in the very act of "regeneration."
Then, subsequently -- at least as I understand you -- faith is produced by or in the already "regenerated" person thru the ministry of the Word. Is that how it is -- that the utility of the Word is for the benefit of the one ALREADY BORN AGAIN? I think it was Gene Bridges who used the word "close" to indicate that "regeneration" and "faith" are very close together, and therefore not actually simultaneous.
If so -- according to that -- the Word is NOT an "instrumentality" in the "new birth" itself. And this is consistent with the theory advocated by the "baby regenerationist" camp of the "Reformed." They make a distinction between "regeneration" coming "first," then comes "faith," so that one "precedes" the other.
So the "Reformed" such as Shedd and Berkhof deny that faith is produced by the Spirit's use of the Word in the act of regeneration itself. This is how they accommodate their claim that "elect" or "covenant" babies are "regenerated," then come to faith later on.
SCOTT'S REMARKS LOCATED
Bob to Charles:
I have located Scott Morgan's remarks on the "Flounderite" blog, as follows:
>>
I also will not agree that even the President of the SBC should be alllowed to speak at Southern. . . . The sad thing about this is there will be some Calvinists at Southern and Southeastern that will say "You can't expect Mohler or Akin not to invite the president of the SBC". Yes, I expect for the Presidents to protect the schools from "Wrong" teaching. Yes, I do!
>>
Here you see, Charles, that Scott Morgan opposes Dr. Al Mohler's having Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, to speak at the Seminary which is supported with the money of those who elected Dr. Page to be their President!
Scott demonstrates the INTOLERANCE and utter CULTIC spirit of the HYBRID CALVINIST.
Although Scott was converted under "Arminian" ministry, since becoming a Hybrid Calvinist, he would probably not now allow such a preacher in his pulpit!
On another matter, James White is now alleging that he believes in and practices "evangelism," and is offering the evidence of it that he "passed out tracts" to Mormons and Catholics on certain occasions in the past. Wonder how man "converts" he was instrumental in making?
Brother Bob, Hello!
You wrote that Scott Morgan said, I also will not agree that even the President of the SBC should be alllowed to speak at Southern.
With such a low number of hybrids in the SBC, Scott better watch his words. The President of Southern Seminary may not have a job for long now that everyone knows he believes contrary to what most Southern Baptists believe.
You wrote, On another matter, James White is now alleging that he believes in and practices "evangelism," and is offering the evidence of it that he "passed out tracts" to Mormons and Catholics on certain occasions in the past. Wonder how man "converts" he was instrumental in making?
You would think he would put their testimonies on his blog. If there were any, that is.
Charles
Post a Comment
<< Home