Debate Soap Opera News: James White
As usual, Brother Bob Ross gets to the heart of the matter.Charles
UPDATE (10/10/06 3:35 pm): Ergun Caner has released a statement: "So … it’s cancelled. They quit."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
DEBATE SOAP OPERA NEWS: JAMES WHITE: Yes, we quit."
Bob to Charles:
Well, the Pity Party goes on and on. James White is sending up "smoke signals" from his Arizona teepee like we have seen before. And the "Flounders" are following suit on their website, too.
The main message is --
"Yes, we quit. We quit trying to work with men who would not honor their word."
Imagine, Charles, what we would have missed if Paul had insisted on a specific format on Mars Hill (Acts 17) where he was given the opportunity to speak by the religious idolators in Athens?
Regardless of all of James' palabber about the Caners, the fact remains, JAMES QUIT. He "tossed in the towel." He held up the "White flag."
He will never "live it down" that he "backed out" of a 2-hour opportunity to present Hybrid Calvinism at Liberty University -- all because he rejected the changing of the format from 3 hours to 2 hours.
If James and Tom could not defend their Hyridism in a 2-hour format, what makes them think they could do any better in a 3-hour format?
posted by Charles @ 3:11 PM
51 Comments:
Amazing the white expected more from the caners than the "religious idolators in athens"?
GREAT EXPECTATIONS?
Anonymous said...
Amazing the white expected more from the caners than the "religious idolators in athens"?
And also, Paul was only an Apostle. James is a Debater, Exeegeter, and Webcaster. It seems "normal" that James would expect more.
I have read through some of your posts.
As a believer don't you feel you should be doing something to Glorify the Lord in your blog, not just bad-mouth other believers.
All I've read is how awful you think James White and Al Mohler are.
I'm not posting this comment to defend either of those men, I'm just wondering if you really think that the Lord is glorified in your making fun of James White. I'm going to say NO.
bob and charles,
how do the five pointers get around the verse in 2 peter 2:1?
volfan007
ps. it's really clear to me.
ANONYMOUS IS MISSING IN ACTION ON THE HYBRID/HYPER/NEO CALVINIST BLOGS
anonymous said, All I've read is how awful you think James White and Al Mohler are.
You should keep reading. There is a lot of good material on the heresy of the "born again before faith" movement of hybrid/hyper/neo/extreme Calvinists that has nothing to do with White or Mohler.
It's not the "awfulness" of White or Mohler to which I object. It's their promotion of the false "born again before faith" heresy which kills churches.
Anonymous, after your remarks, I looked at a couple of the hybrid Calvinist blogs such as those run by the Flounders, Alan Kurschner, and Timmy "UPS" Brister. I must have missed it -- I didn't see a single remark of yours asking them to quit making fun of Christians who disagree with them. You are "missing in action" on those neoCalvinist blogs.
Where are your comments on their blogs? In other words: Clean up your own house before you start sweeping out mine.
Charles
THANK$$$, JAME$$$
Bob to Charles:
Tom Ascol has this comment on his blog:
I am sorry that so many had made plans and are now left holding reservations that they no longer need. Some have emailed and called and indicated that they will be traveling to Lynchburg anyway, since they have non-refundable tickets and hotel reservations. Perhaps such people can somehow connect with each other for fellowship while in town.
Do you "feel sorry" for these "suckers," Charles? I can't say that I do, for they are just paying the price for their infatuation with Hybrid Calvinism as advocated by White and Ascol.
Brother Bob, Hello!
You asked, Do you "feel sorry" for these "suckers," Charles?
I can't say that I do. However, I doubt their numbers are all that great, a handful if even that many.
The hybrid/neo/extreme/hyper Calvinists have a habit of overblowing their influence, except in the area of reporting their church statistics since they have little or nothing to report.
Charles
MAKING FUN OF JAMES?
anonymous said . . .
I'm just wondering if you really think that the Lord is glorified in your making fun of James White.
James' spproach to things just seems to be the kind which encourages that kind of reaction -- whether the Lord is glorified or not. I don't think the Lord is really expecting glory in regard to some of the things that we find humorous, but I don't think He minds.
James is really somewhat of a "comedy," especially in the light of how "seriously" he presents his "act." The more "serious" he portrays himself, the more humorous he becomes. He is something on the order of a white version of the "Kingfish" of the old "Amos & Andy" comedy act.
I mean -- who could generate such a huge amount of "holy horror" over the current "debate" fiasco, as if some great theological catastrophe has occurred?
And don't you think it merits a laugh, or a little "making fun of James," when he "exegeetes" stuff like when he said that God "knocked him [Paul] off of his horse" -- and he still wants us to view him as some kind of "scholar" for such "exegeet'n"? Don't you think that's rather "funny"?
And when James turns down an invitation to participate in a 2-hour debate at Liberty because the time alloted was cut back to 2 hours, don't you think that is really a piece of comedy for him to withdraw? Like he and Ascol need more time to "refute" the "inept" Caners?
You don't really expect me to take James "seriously," do you? The man is as much a palabberist as Peter Ruckman. The best reaction to the comedy of these types is simply to "make fun" of them.
TIMOTHEUS
Bob to Charles:
I am leaving this fellow to you, Charles, for any comment. I wonder if he might be a regular customer at the "White Lightn' Distillery," and may be wobbling from too much of that brew?
Since he didn't offer anything to refute, and seems satisfied with tossing about some meaningless palabber, I don't see any reason to waste words commenting further.
CARTOONERY OK?
Anonymous said.. .
I'm just wondering if you really think that the Lord is glorified in your making fun of James White. I'm going to say NO.
Since Brother James and Brother Tom are using a cartoon to "make fun" of the Caners, do you think the Lord is "glorified" thereby?
Note to Charles: If I get a "Yes" on that, maybe you can find a cartoonist to draw a cartoon of James and Tom "picking up their marbles and going home," pouting about the time allowed for a game of marbles.
BACKGROUND OF THE "DEBATE"
Bob to Charles:
I read the following, Charles, on Tom Ascol's blog:
>>
Those who have been reading this blog for the last 8 months, or who have been industrious enough to do a little research, will know that the genesis of the debate is found in various comments that Ergun and Emir Caner left on a post I wrote about Johnny Hunt's announced candidacy for the SBC presidency. They were offended by remarks made by some commenters who disparaged Hunt and others, and took it upon themselves to respond with inflammatory and bombastic accusations.
>>
I took time, Charles, to read some of those "disparaging" remarks about Johnny Hunt, and Ascol certainly stooped to a very low level of ethics in publishing some of them. No wonder the Caners were "offended," for the remarks could hardly have been more provocative.
Apparently, Ascol was disturbed by the possible candidacy of Hunt [who actually did not run for President of the SBC], and so Tom's comments began to "stoke the coals" among the Hybrid Calvinists, including the likes of the strident Scott Morgan who contributed his "two cents worth" of denigrating comments against his former pastor.
So -- if the "Flounderites" are not stewing in their Whine, must not Tom Ascol share much of the blame, due to his having inspired the anti-Johnny Hunt comments in the string of 372 posts that were made? Had he not published the denigrating comments about Hunt, who knows but what the Caners would have never reacted?
Of course, this would have deprived James White of the opportunity to demonstrate his "Whitemania," wouldn't it? And what a great loss that would have been!
bob said,
"And also, Paul was only an Apostle. James is a Debater, Exeegeter, and Webcaster. It seems "normal" that James would expect more."
Now that is just plain stupid.
So if I am an apostle I can expect believers to behave better than pagans, but if I'm a nobody Christian like Jame White I shouldn't.
DERP
Volsfan: Here is some nice leisure reading.
2 Peter 2:1
2 Peter 2:1 The sequel
Hybrid Helps
Spurgeon
Volsfan:
More Good Stuff
"STUPID"
deerp said...
bob said,
"And also, Paul was only an Apostle. James is a Debater, Exeegeter, and Webcaster. It seems "normal" that James would expect more."
Now that is just plain stupid.
Congratulations on "understanding" the facetiousness. Some "nerd" types -- after the order of u-no-hoo -- seemed to have missed it.
INFORMATION
I.2Peter said...
Volsfan: Here is some nice leisure reading.
Bob to Charles:
What are the "chances," Charles, that any of these Hybrid websites would publish a link to the Calvinist Flyswatter?
You show no fear, Charles, of one's reading the To Heavy Hybrid Calvinist sites, but do you get the impression that the Flyswatter is greatly feared by the Hybrid Hobbyists who fear that some of the "elect" might be "reprobated" if they come here and read the rebuttals of Hybridism?
Historically, the "Reformed" pedobaptist "baby regenerationists" who professed "Calvinism" have tried to restrict free speech. So it seems to be an "attribute" of the professed "friends" of "sovereign grace" that they think have to give God a "helping hand" in protecting the "elect" against alleged "heresy."
hey man(second peter and free stuff,or maybe yall are the same person)....what yall gave up adds up to nada! most of this is philosophical runaround. btw, i didnt mean for you to send me to a site where the guy wrote a book trying to explain away this verse.
this verse is very plain and clear....Jesus died for everyone....the false teachers deny the Lord who BOUGHT them... atonement...thus, atonement is not limited to just the elect. false teachers are not the elect. and, btw, this verse...along with many others...does away with irrestible grace as well. they denied the Lord who bought them.
from the hills of tn,
volfan007
WHITE, MOHLER
Anonymous said...
All I've read is how awful you think James White and Al Mohler are.
I have been personally acquainted with both James White and Al Mohler for several years.
As for Brother Mohler, he contacted us about getting Spurgeon's sermon set, and we agreed to cooperate to provide him a complete 63-volume set at a special price savings in 1992. At that time, he was a relatively unknown "small fry," employed in editorial work by a magazine in Georgia called "Preaching."
Nowadays, however, ostensibly due to his subsequent promoting of Hybrid Calvinism and his "kissing up" to the "Reformed" pedobaptist baby regenerationists, Brother Mohler won't even do me the courtesy of responding to my question on why Hardshell Lasserre Bradley Jr. was invited to the Seminary.
As for White, back in the 1990s, we actually promoted James White in our then-published "Pilgrim" magazine. We also promoted the sale of his books on Mormons and KJVO and carried them it our book store.
Then, later, when we publicly took exception to John MacArhtur's view on "sonship" as not being the Creedal view of Eternal Sonship, James turned his guns on us and fired in defense of JMac. We have already told that story on this blog. See
Flyswatter archives, April 2, 2006: "What Does James White Believe About the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ?"
Later, after JMac recanted on "incarnational sonship" and endorsed Eternal Sonship, James White exposed his duplicitious character. James then claimed he never did agree with JMac on "incarnational sonship" -- and that was claimed in spite of his attacking us, stating that JMac's teaching was "solid teaching," and that what I wrote about JMac was inaccurate?
Remember, James is also just as "totally depraved" as Dave Hunt and Ergun Caner, and just as capable of carnal behaviour. And he exposed his carnal duplicity in the MacArthur matter.
Also, when James tried to take on Peter Ruckman, Ruckman literally laughed James off the field, for James did not even understand what Ruckman believed. I did a double-check on James' "KJV Only" book and found that Ruckman was right -- James misrepresented Ruckman's view. This exposed James' lack of the primary essential necessary for polemics and debate -- that is, proper understanding and proper representation. He demonstated that he lacks the practice of either.
Then James tried to take on "Arminianism" and Dave Hunt. He exposed his lack in this area when he advocated Hybrid Calvinism -- the "Reformed" baby regenerationist doctrine of "born again before faith." Hunt rebutted James' Hybridism by quoting Spurgeon.
So James has several "demerits" to his account in my book. Even his pretense of "exegesis" is flawed -- as for example, his teaching that God "knocked Paul off of his horse" -- which is "eisegesis" of the first order.
Brother Scott, Hello!
I read your post several times. Nothing, I repeat, nothing, in the Georgia confession teaches "born again before faith." This was surprising to me since you are so adamant that it does.
Scott, based on some of your most recent posts I am beginning to wonder if you are mentally capable of critical thinking. Except maybe for the particular redemption clause there is nothing of substance in this confession that the average Southern Baptist, Calvinist or Arminian, could not affirm today.
Like Gene Bridges, I'm not sure that you even understand what “born again before faith” is.
Charles
Volsfan:
Yea, you strike me as someone who's done a lot of investigation.
My money says that you didn't read more than 2 minutes from any of those links.
It's much easier to believe that those who disagree with you are idiots and are only spouting philosophy.
question for Volsfan:
Did Jesus pay for the sins of people who are in hell? If so, why does God punish the same sins twice, on two different people shoulders?
Brother Timotheos, Hello!
You wrote, I do want to say I appreciate the fact that you allow my posts on your blog - it would be just as easy (and perhaps more desireable from your perspective) to disallow them. And in spite of the fact that my posts are generally contrary to you both, I do enjoy Bob's knowledge and appreciation of C. H. Spurgeon.
I saw no need to respond to your first post as I assumed you were merely venting. Some who disagree with The Flyswatter find posting here to be cathartic and I’m glad to help.
Unlike the Founders, Steve Camp, The Calvinist Gadfly, and others from the “born again before faith” crowd, I see no need to ban contrary viewpoints. Posts like yours would probably be banned at the Flounders blog and since James White allows no comments except his own you couldn't even make a peep at aomin.org.
Bob Ross and I are seeing near nervous breakdowns from the neo/extreme/hybrid/hyper Calvinist side. You guys had a virtual monopoly on the blogosphere and I suppose you thought the truth would never catch up with you. Now it has, and pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention are realizing that this “born again before faith” nonsense is unbiblical and foreign to our Baptist heritage. Even John Calvin himself rejected it!
Glad to be of service, my brother. Come back anytime.
Charles
Brother Timotheos, Hello!
You said, And though I am not a personal friend of either James White or Tom Ascol, I have met them both, consider them faithful servants of the Lord and my brothers in His household. Consequently, they are due my respect and love as brothers, even if I do not always agree with them.
I have never questioned James White or Tom Ascol's salvation and as far as I know, neither has Brother Bob Ross.
I frequently refer to both of them as "brother" on this blog.
What I have questioned is their theology and some of their practices. Since "Dr." James White consistently makes fun of, and ridicules those who disagree with him such as the Caners, Dave Hunt, etc. I am amazed when James' sycophants get mad at someone who uses the same tactics on James.
Tom Ascol may be a gentleman but he allows his own blogging sycophants to make hateful comments about leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. These same sycophants then take offense when someone points out problems with Tom's theology or the fact that the founder of the Flouders was strongly influenced by a baby-baptizing "born again before faith" man. I don't believe that these are things that the Flounders would like Southern Baptist pastors to know.
Charles
Brother Scott, Hello!
You wrote, Notice the order again.
It didn't say anything about there being an "order." Is the word, "order" in there?
It merely says that certain things happen to those who are chosen in Christ. Even Arminians believe that.
You said, I CHARGE WITH BEING A LIAR!
Scott, are you feeling well? I believe you are at the point of breakdown. I know getting fired from Johnny Hunt's church was one of the most tramatic things to ever happen to you, but brother, you are going to have to get over it. Brother Johnny is not going to allow the spread of the "born again before faith" heresy in his church, so you had to go.
Don't let the root of bitterness take hold of your heart, Brother Scott. The Lord will help you if you ask him.
Charles
POOR SCOTT
Scott, you promised more than you have produced. You are evidently a very careless reader
I think you should seriously consider stop listening to your "Hardshell" or "non-Hardshell" Hybrid acquaintances who neither believe nor stand for "Effectual Calling" by "the Word and Spirit" presented in our 1689 Baptist Confession -- the Hardshells themselves being the witnesses. Also, be sure to let Nettles know about the following distinctions. You don't want Brother Tome to be embarrassed by some first-year student, do you?
You quote:
We believe that all those who were chosen in Christ, will be EFFECTUALLY CALLED, regenerated, converted, sanctified, and supported by the spirit and power of God, so that they shall persevere in grace, and not one of them be finally lost.
You will notice, Scott, that this Georgia Confession puts "effectually called" BEFORE "regeneration," as well as before conversion, justification, sanctification, and perseverance.
If these Georgians accepted the 1689 Baptist Confession, then they would have therefore accepted the fact that "effectual calling" is accomplished "by His Word and Spirit . . . enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly," etc., and that by this effectual calling "the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls" (Chapters 10, 14).
All of that is part-and-parcel of "effectual calling," which the Georgia Confession's order-of-mention lists BEFORE "regeneration."
If the Confession intended to present a chronological or even logical sequence of these things, this does not appear to be consistent with the 1689 Confession, does it?
Separating "effectual calling" and "regeneration" does not coincide with the 1689 Confession, does it?
But I really think you have misconstrued what they are saying, similar to how you have misconstrued everything on this subject in the past.
According to your perverted, distorted "interpretation" of the Georgia Confession, you have made the absurd case that not only are the elect "regenerated" before Spirit-given faith by the instrumental means of the Word, your distortion would also have it that this Confession teaches that the elect are even "effectually called" before "regeneration."
Therefore you have "effectual calling" as being distinct from and coming BEFORE regeneration! This is an absurdity, and departs from the 1689 Baptist Confession.
Do you actually believe that Effecual Calling BY THE WORD AND SPIRIT differs from and comes before REGENERATION? Did Tom Nettles teach you this absurdity?
What a mess you fellows make!
Your Hardshell-influenced mind just keeps getting you deeper into the mire of Hybridism, doesn't it, Scott? "Evil communications corrupt . . ."?
Now, Scott, since your "interpretation" of the Georgia Confession has "effectual calling" before
"regeneration," I wonder if you remember Romans 8:30? This verse has calling listed before "justified," but the verse says nothing at all about "calling" coming before "regeneration" or "conversion." By your "logic" would not this eliminate both regeneration and conversion?
Or, are they not rather constituencies in effectual calling and all occur simultaneously?
Also, Scott, if you have ever read 1 Thessalonians 2:13, you must have seen that God "effectually worketh" by means of the Word. The Spirit uses the Word in calling (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:14; John 6:63).
If so, then it appears that our Baptist Confession is correct in teaching that "effectual calling" is indeed enacted by the Word and Spirit, and not by the "Spirit only" as taught by the Hardshells, Hybrids, and "baby regenerationists."
I think you should read B. H. Carroll on regeneration, and dispense with counseling with the Hardshells and Hybrids. See Carroll's Sermons, chapter 12, page 177:
>>
Conviction, repentance and faith are the CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF REGENERATION.
>>
And remember, Scott, don't the Founders allegedly endorse Dr. Carroll?
Remember, too, Scott, that John L. Dagg said that "faith" PRECEDES in regeneration (Manual of Theology, page 279). Are you going to accept Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, Frame and other "baby regenerationists" over Dr. Dagg who is approved by the Founders?
Likewise remember, Scott, that Dr. J. P. Boyce said that "Conversion is included under the one term regeneration," and that "The Scriptures CONNECT the two under the ONE idea of the NEW BIRTH" (Abstract of Systematic Theology, pages 373, 374).
Why don't you stop you dallience with the disorderly Hardshells, the "baby regenerationists," and Hybrids, like Tom Nettles, and come back to the Baptists who believe what is taught in the 1689 Baptist Confession?
AMEN TO THAT
Charles said...
I have never questioned James White or Tom Ascol's salvation and as far as I know, neither has Brother Bob Ross.
I confirm this, Charles, and would only add that every one who believes in Christ is born again (1 John 5:4, 1).
Even though both James and Tom were proably saved under what they now call "Arminianism" -- as were Scott Morgan, Gene Bridges, Michael Spencer and perhaps nearly all of the Hybrids -- this does not nullify their faith in Christ.
SETTLE DOWN, BROTHER SCOTT
charles said . . .
Don't let the root of bitterness take hold of your heart, Brother Scott. The Lord will help you if you ask him.
This seems to be the major factor, Charles, motivating Brother Scott's extreme, intolerant attitude. He can't get over "Johnny Hunt." He is psychologically reacting to you and me and others who disagree with him, seeing us as "Johnny Hunts."
I believed what I now believe before I ever heard of Johnny Hunt. I believed this in the 1950s. I wrote against the "born again before faith" heresy in the 1950s.
As for the "war" Scott wants with "Arminians," he is warring about theoretical issues. No one has more division over such matters than the Hybrid Calvinists.
Scott himself says he can't agree with the Hardshells, and he has even been carping about some things with Tom Ascol lately, even griping about Mohler and Akin allowing "Arminians" to speak at the seminaries.
Let me just add this: After over 50 years of observing so much of the "debating" about "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" among Baptists, I have noticed the following:
1. Both affirm the lost condition of mankind without Christ. (Scott even taught that when he worked under Johnny Hunt and before he adopted Hybrid Calvinism.)
2. Both affirm that Christ's death is sufficient to save all men, and Christ is to be preached to all men (Mark 16:15, 15).
3. Both affirm that one must hear the Gospel and believe on Christ for salvation -- even the "elect." Election does not exclude the necessity of faith in either theological "system."
4. Both affirm that sinners are born again by the Holy Spirit.
5. Both affirm that ultimately only believers go to Heaven.
Now, with the exception of the "Reformed" or "baby regenerationists" with their "covenant" heresy, Baptists can spin those things theoretically and theologically in different directions, argue over how certain verses are to be understood, debate the differences, etc. -- but the "bottom line" basics do not change.
SCOTT'S "EYEBALLS"?
scott said . . .
Notice the order my Arminian friend. First, they listed them as two seperate things and notice the order. Conversion happens because of Regeneration. You and Bob need to face it that it shows that these Baptists believed that for Conversion to happen REGENERATION MUST COME FIRST ! Put your eyeballs back in your head!
Speaking of "eyeballs," Brother Scott, and the matter of "the order," did your eyeballs notice that this Georgia Confession has EFFECTUAL CALLING first -- BEFORE regeneration and conversion?
Our 1689 Baptist Confession says that Effectual Calling is "by His Word and Spirit," "enlightening their minds SPIRITUALLY and SAVINGLY to understand the things of God" (Chapter 10).
In the Georgia Confession, this "Effectual Calling" is listed in the "order" before regeneration, so if they endorsed the 1689 Confession, this must mean that these Georgians believed that the "elect" spiritually and SAVINGLY understood the things of God before "regeneration" -- right?
Understand -- this is according to your method of "interpretation." As for me, I take it just as it reads in the 1689 Baptist Confession. That's why I am a "Confessional Calvinist" and not a Hardshell/Hybrid Calvinist who teaches "born again before faith."
Brother Bob said to Scott, Understand -- this is according to your method of "interpretation."
Face it, Brother Scott, you're reading "born again before faith" into it. Either way you look at it, the Georgia confession does not teach it. Read Brother Bob's words carefully and you'll see it for yourself.
Charles
JOHNNY & JERRY'S THEOLOGY?
scott said . . .
Scott said...
It's amazing what some non five point Calvinist are saying about Johnny's and Jerry's theology lately. It really is. It's scary!
Unfortunately, Scott, it is not "Johnny & Jerry's theology" which we have been dealing with, but "Willie & Louie's" -- Shedd and Berkhof, the leading "systematic" aberrants who teach the "born again before faith" heresy held by the Hybrid Calvinists.
The Founders' movement is based on Berkhof's theology which was funneled by Iain Murray to Ernest Reisinger, the founder of the Flounders. This is where they they got heresy of "born again before faith." This is where Sproul and others of the "Reformed" camp got the same heresy.
SBC PRESIDENT?
Scott said...
Just got off the phone with a former SBC president. He agrees as well with what was being communicated . In otherwords he agrees that Regeneration precedes Conversion.
You mean there is actually a former SBC president who is a Hybrid Calvinist? I can't imagine who that might be? Any ideas, Charles?
QUESTIONS FOR BRO. SCOTT
Do you agree, Scott, with the Georgia Confession, that Effectual Calling is before regeneration?
Do you agree with the 1689 Baptist Confession that Effectual Calling is by the Word and Spirit, enlightening the elect spiritually and SAVINGLY?
Do you agree that your foot is in your mouth and you can't get it out?
Notice --
1. Effectual Calling comes before Regeneration (per the "order" in the Georgia Confession).
2. Effectual Calling enlightens the sinner "SAVINGLY" (per the 1689 Baptist Confession).
3. Therefore, the sinner is saved before he is regenerated, according to the Confessions.
This is according to Scott Morgan's "logic" in regard to the "order" of the Georgia Confession.
BE THANKFUL, SCOTT
scott said . . .
I'm also going to show in another post that several early Baptist Associations in the South would not ordain a man if he did not believe that God chose " Some " men unto eternal life and Particular Redemption. They would not let him preach in the churches.
Well, I hope you can do a better job than you did with that Georgia Confession.
Also, aren't you the lucky one -- that this "ban" on preaching was not in effect when and where you got saved -- under "Arminian" ministry? And aren't the Founders also the lucky ones -- with most of them probably being saved under "Arminian" ministries?
GRATITUDE TO SCOTT
Charles said...
Face it, Brother Scott, you're reading "born again before faith" into it. Either way you look at it, the Georgia confession does not teach it.
We really owe Scott our gratitude, Charles, for his quoting this old Georgia Confession.
The Georgia Confession clearly serves to confirm the view for which we have been contending on this blog ever since it was launched.
The Confession plainly has the work done by "the Word and Spirit" in "Effectual Calling" is the source of regeneration and conversion.
Since our 1689 Baptist Confession teaches that by means of "the Word and Spirit" sinners are called, "enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God" (chpater 10), the Georgia Confession backs up this teaching when it places "Effectual Calling" at the top of the list.
Regeneration and Conversion are two sides of the same "born again" experience which is accomplished by instrumental means of the Word and the efficient power of the Holy Spirit.
Brother Scott was obviously blind to what this Georgia Confession put first, but nevertheless his blind spot has served to support our view, and for that we can be thankful for Scott's contribution.
ORDAIN OSTEEN or SCOTT?
scott said . . .
The early Baptists would not recognize many of our SBC preachers today or call our churches "Churches". Oh they would ordain Joel Osteen in a minute? You got to be kidding!
I don't know who would stand the best chance of being ordained -- Joel or Scott.
Probably it would be Joel, for he at least believes that one is saved "only by placing our faith in Jesus Christ," whereas Scott believes one is "born again before faith" in Jesus Christ.
free stuff,
again, i just stick with what the bible says and clearly teaches... i dont really want to go into your philosophical debate over things that we are not told.
Jesus died for the sins of the world. only those who recieve His gift will be saved. those who reject His gift will go to hell. thats what we are told.
volfan007
Brother Bob, hello!
You wrote, I don't know who would stand the best chance of being ordained -- Joel or Scott.
Probably it would be Joel,
Yes, Southern Baptist churches would not want a preacher who believed that a person was regenerated before placing faith in Christ.
I suspect that Southern Baptist churches also do not want a seminary teaching it and as soon as they find out what is being taught in Louisville I believe we will see some changes made.
Charles
SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCHES
Charles said...
Southern Baptist churches would not want a preacher who believed that a person was regenerated before placing faith in Christ.
You are correct, Charles, especially when we consider the record of Baptist history in regard to that heresy.
The "born again before faith" heresy infected a number of Baptist churches in the early 1800s. In 1832, they mustered enough support to enact a split from the Baptist mainstream of "missionary" churches, forming the "Primitive Baptist Church," otherwise became commonly known as "Hardshells."
The Hardshells denied that faith is one of the "constiuent elements" of "regeneration," and like the "Reformed" theologians such as Shedd and Berkhof and their "Reformed" disciples denied that the Word is the "instrumental" means in regeneration.
They taught the "Spirit alone" theory, as I have discussed in my "Hardshell Heresies" series published on this blog a few weeks ago.
Hardshells contended that the Word, or Gospel, is merely of a utilitarian purpose AFTER the sinner has been "made alive" or "born again before faith."
It is therefore no wonder that James White is a "welcome" speaker by the Hardshells, as we noticed on March 9, 2006 on this blog.
http://calvinistflyswatter.
blogspot.com/2006/03/james-
white-preaches-for-
hardshell.html
Likewise, I don't suppose we should be surprised that Tom Nettles invited America's #1 Hardshell preacher, Lasserre Bradley Jr., to the Southern Seminary campus.
And I am not at all suprised that Pastor Scott Morgan of the Flounders evidently has an ongoing dallience with the Hardshells in Georgia.
Hardshells, the Reformed "baby regenerationists," and the Flounders all hold in common the heresy that sinners are "born again before faith" -- as it has been defended by Scott Morgan, Gene Bridges, and a few others who have posted on this blog.
The Gospel-preaching, Missionary-supporting Baptists of the 1830s made it clear that they have no "quarter" for the "born again before faith" heresy.
Modern Hybrid Calvinists who take that view should either go with the Hardshells or with the "Reformed" baby
regenerationists.
BYW, one is not "Arminian" for rejecting the heresy of the Hardshells and "Reformed" on "born again before faith," as Hybrid Calvinists such as Scott Morgan would have you think.
volsfan007:
I admire that fact that you want the plain meaning of the Bible to speak. However, many passages in the Bible seem to teach contrary to what we might both believe. In those cases, we obviously appreciate looking DEEPER. For example.
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
If I argue like you do. Then I must admit that the Church of Christ is right that this clearly teaches that I must be baptized to be forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit. That is the plain reading of the text.
My point is simply this. To have a meaningful discussion you gotta go a little deeper than you seem to want to go on certain passages. Its the passages that confirm our traditional understandings that need to be probed the most, so that we don't trust in tradition, but the whole councel of God.
It is quite natural to praise the nobility of the plain meaning when it is an Arminian sounding text. But on Calvinistic texts, I'm sure you will seek a deeper explanation, so that your traditions will not be shaken.
Let the plain meaning of Romans 9 speak to you.
Romans 9:21 "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-
freestuff,
what about that passage in romans? i believe it.
but,this passage also does not negate 1 john 2:2, nor does it negate 2 peter 2:1-4. and, you dont need to try to explain them away thru all that philosophy that you told me to go to before.
volfan007
FALSE STUFF
free stuff said . . .
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
If I argue like you do. Then I must admit that the Church of Christ is right that this clearly teaches that I must be baptized to be forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit. That is the plain reading of the text.
You need to change your moniker to "false stuff."
I have never read so many errors in one statement since reading some remark by Gene Bridges or Scott Morgan.
You don't even retain the comma after repent, not to mention misrepresenting what the verse says.
If I believed the errors you state here, I would join the Campbellites.
Awhile back, I received the following question on Acts 2:38:
>>
Those who assert that baptism by immersion in water is an element of our salvation point to the book of Acts (I believe it's 2:38), where Peter states to a group to whom he was preaching, "Repent and be baptized."
Brother, how do we get around that?
MJ
>>
We don't "get around" Acts 2:38, WE ACCEPT IT, but we differ with the interpretation which makes baptism a means of actual or literal remission of sins.
We believe baptism has REFERENCE to (Greek: "eis") the remission of sin, but in a REPRESENTATIVE and DECLARATIVE sense rather than a procurative sense.
Acts 2:38 is the "sugarstick" for those who believe that baptism is literally "in order to" (procures) the real, actual, experimental remission of sins, and is an essential ingredient of salvation.
We do not accept this view. Baptism DOES remit sins, but the entire issue is, IN WHAT SENSE does -- or can -- baptism remit sins?
And the answer is, the ONLY sense in which baptism CAN remit -- as we elsewhere understand from Scripture -- is as a "LIKENESS" and a "FIGURE" (Romans 6:4-6; 1 Peter 3:21). This is the representative sense.
The remission of sins in the representative sense is a very common biblical concept, especially in the Biblical ceremonies, ordinances, and typology. Baptism is much like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament, which did not really or literally atone for sin but were representations of Jesus Christ who would eventually come into the world and actually atone for sin by the sacrifice of Himself. See Hebrews 10.
In language of the figurative category, there is the device called "trope,” which means the attribution of something which is "real" to that which is only a symbol, an emblem, or a representation. For example, when you show a picture of your mother and say, "This is my mother," the language are using is "trope" -- thel language about the photo means it simply represents or illustrates your mother. Your words do not mean that the photo is really or literally your mother. The photo simply represents her.
For a Biblical example of this, consider the following:
Christ said, "This IS my body" when He took the bread. When He took the cup, He said, "This IS my blood."
Of course, His literal body was His fleshly body, and not the bread itself. His literal blood was still circulating in His literal body, and was not the liquid in the cup. He was using "trope" in His teaching -- attributing the reality to the emblem.
Since it is not possible for an external ordinance to do an INTERNAL work on the heart or to render real satisfaction (atonement) to the broken Law of God (Hebrews 10:1-4), baptism cannot do these things except in the "trope" sense -- it represents the remission of sins by the death of Christ, which was the REAL remission (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:22, 26, 28).
He put away sins by the sacrifice of Himself. Baptism no more literally remits sins than the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament.
In spiritual EXPERIENCE, this remission of sins comes to us in our hearts through FAITH (Romans 3:24-26; Acts 13:38, 39).
"Remission of Sins" may be considered in three categories:
(1) Literally, by the Death of Christ -- Matthew 26:26-28
(2) Experientally, by Faith in Christ -- Acts 10:43
(3) Representatively, by Baptism -- Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21
As a born again believer -- no longer condemned, but passed from death to life, never to perish, with my old man dead and my life hid with Christ in God -- I was baptized for ["eis" - with reference to] the remission of sins, and so was every other child of God who has been baptized. Baptism is the likeness of my death to sin and resurrection to new life in Jesus Christ.
If you have access to the following books, you may find a more extensive exposition of baptism "eis" (with reference to) the remission of sins:
AN INTEREPRETATION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE by Dr. B. H. Carroll (two chapters on Acts 2:38), who is the very best expositor on this subject; and see THE NASHVILLE DEBATE (J. B. Moody, Baptist vs. James A. Harding, Church of Christ).
Also, see W. E. Vine's EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS, page 284, Revell edition of 1958).
These sources contend that the Greek preposition "eis" means "with reference to," "in regard to," and that the sense of reference in Acts 2:38 is the representative sense, as I have explained above.
PROVIDENCE SEEKING SCOTT?
Bob to Charles:
You said in an email, Charles, it has been "an interesting week of Flyswatting."
Yes, and one of the most significantly interesting items came by way of Brother Scott Morgan. I can't help thinking that God's Providence has been at work with Brother Scott Morgan.
He brought Brother Scott into contact with the "Georgia Confession" which revealed to Scott that these Baptists placed "Effectual Calling" before "regeneration."
This must have been Providential on the basis Romans 8:28, 29.
I just hope that Scott's mind will has been enlightened by the Spirit to recognize that the Lord is granting himself grace, bringing the truth to him by means of the Confession, and that this will be an "effectual calling" for Scott to come to the knowledge of the truth and renounce Hybrid Calvinism. May he hear the call, "Come out of her, my people."
FRIDAY 13TH UNLUCKY FOR SCOTT?
Bob to Charles:
Friday the 13th is believed by some to be an "unlucky day."
Surely, it apparently was unlucky in the case of Scott Morgan. He was all hypered up about the "Georgia Confession," but since we have refuted his distortion of it, he seems to have withdrawn -- which has been his habit every time we have refuted him.
Was Friday the 13th unlucky for Scott, or is every day unlucky for him when he tries to promote the heresy of "born again before faith"?
Bob Ross:
I believe everything you said about Acts 2:38 and thank you for making my point to VOLSFAN that sometimes the "plain meaning" of a text is not so appearant and sometimes requires a little extra thought.
Now if Volsfan would just apply that work ethic to passages appear very arminian on the surface, he would be on his way to deeper understanding and interaction.
By the way, were there commas in the original greek?
COMMAS?
free stuff said...
By the way, were there commas in the original greek?
I did not see you quoting the original Greek. What translation did you use?
I mentioned the comma since it is a very regular habit of Campbellites to dismiss the comma of any translation in their effort to coordinate "repent" with "be baptized."
SCOTT IS ALIVE!
Bob to Charles:
I was just over at "Floundersville," Charles, and guess who is over there chewing up and spitting out John 3:16?
Yes, our friend, Scott Morgan. If you were thinking that the Georgia Kudzu had wrapped around his throat and choked him to death, you can take some relief. He is alive and just as Hybridized as ever.
We may have "weaned" him, however, from "sucking eggs" regarding that "Georgia Confession."
Tom Ascol is also making comments about Jerry Vines's sermon, and in the course thereof, he affirms the usual heresy of the Hybrid Calvinists that one is "born again before faith."
In fact, Tom even has the sinner "born again" but not saved, as he says "regeneration is not equivalent to salvation."
So the head of the Flounders believes one can be "regenerated" but not be saved? Just like the Hardshells teach.
"GREAT DEBATER"?
scott said . . .
It says alot about the man named Bob Ross and you claim to be a great debater?
Brother Scott, you challenged me to a debate; I did not challenge you or brag that I was a "great debater."
I have never been the "challenger" in any debate in which I have been a participant, and I have never offered money as enticement for debates -- like James White.
What you have not done since you issued a challenge to me to debate is set the date and name the place. When can we expect to hear from you about these matters?
Remember, you can get others to be your "seconds" and give you "rub downs" between rounds -- such as James White, Tom Ascol, Tom Nettles or even John Brine (if you can raise him from the dead).
What is it about Brine you don't like, Scott? I notice you always want to toss in a "disclaimer" about him. What's the problem, Scott? Do you have a "bone to pick" with John Brine?
Remember Scott, our 1689 Baptist Confession has "Effectual Calling" bringing the elect to a spiritual and saving understanding of the things of God (chapter 10). The "Georgia Confession" puts that "Effectual Calling" first, which tells you more than you want to face.
As for what you say about some other names in your posts, we have already taken all of those away from you, and there's no need for repetition. We have refuted you on Gill, Spurgeon, the Confessions, and the latest "donation" was your giving us the "Georgia Confession" which upholds our view on "Effectual Calling" -- that salvation is by the Holy Spirit's calling men by the Word of God, begetting faith and therefore regenerating and converting them in the one act which the Bible calls being "born again."
Remember Boyce said that "The whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration," and "The Scriptures CONNECT the TWO under the ONE IDEA of the new birth" (pages 373, 374).
You don't believe that Scott, so you disagree with one of the first "Founders," J. P. Boyce, and hold to heresy. You also reject Dr. Dagg and B. H. Carroll, as we have noted.
Let us hear from you about the debate, Brother Scott . . . will you?
BOB TO SCOTT
You keep on creating more and more boredom, Scott, even after you have been refuted in the past about Boyce, Regeneration/Conversion, the Confessions, etc. Just go back and read my refutations of you in the past and you will have the same truth which refutes your latest remarks. Truth does not change, and repetition in your case if not necessary.
Why do you keep so quiet about your challenge to me to debate with you? Surely, if you have the truth, you have nothing to fear, do you?
You don't like "Effectual Calling" in the 1689 Baptist Confession -- I can tell from the way you try to dismiss it. No one has to "predict" how you always evade that truth, for it is a leadpipe cinch you will evade it and try to put in your distortion about regeneration/conversion.
Boyce said they are "included" under one term, "Regeneration." Boyce said they are connected "under one idea of being born again."
Do you accept Boyce, Scott?
BOYCE vs SCOTT
Scott said...
You keep avoiding things ! What about the comments from Boyce that I documented
What about the comments from Boyce which you have NOT documented, Scott? Such as --
"A man in one sense may be called converted as soon as he has truly turned to God and is also seeking to know and do his will. THIS is that AMOUNT OF CONVERSION which is so nearly CONTEMPORANEOUS with regeneration as to be liable to be supposed to exist at the SAME MOMENT WITH IT, and which indeed in a being capable of thought on such subjects must be its IMMEDIATE effect."
Here you see, Scott, that Boyce says one who has "truly turned to God" did so CONTEMPORANEOUS with regeneration. That means AT THE SAME MOMENT.
Boyce therefore says that when the Spirit "acts mediately through the Word," He begets by the Word (James 1:18, page 375) in producing a man's "change of heart" or "turning to God" (in which Boyce includes "personal trust in Christ and His salvation")-- then that "amount of conversion" is contemporaneous with the Spirit's work when He applies the Word, according to Boyce.
Man's "turning to God" (in faith) is the "immediate effect" of the Spirit's begetting by the Word of God (James 1:18).
This is why Boyce could say that "the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is INCLUDED under the one term regeneration."
What Boyce or anyone else says about "dying infants" is purely conjecture at best. No one knows and the Bible does not reveal how, when, where or by what "means" dying infants have their minds enlarged, enlightened, and come to faith in Christ -- the Hardshells notwithstanding.
What Boyce says on page 381 on infants seems to simply be repetitious of what was taught by professors at the Presbyterian Princeton Seminary which Boyce attended. You can read the same assumptions in the Presbyterian writers by whom Boyce was tutored. We should not be surprised to find some of the palabber of Presbyterianism clinging to Boyce since he was taught by them.
QUESTION FOR SCOTT
Bob to Scott:
The Georgia Confession says:
We believe that sinners are justified in the sight of God, only by the
righteousness of Christ imputed to them. . . . that all those who were chosen in Christ, will be effectually called, regenerated, converted, sanctified, and supported by the spirit and power of God, etc.
Since you seem to think that the "order" of mention in this Confession signifies chronology or the sequence of occurence, does it not appear that these Georgia Baptist believed that "justification" preceded "regeneration" and "conversion"?
I am just looking at this based on your "logic," Scott, about the "order."
Now, if "justification" precedes "regeneration," and if the Bible teaches justitication is "by faith," what does this tell you? -- Does it mean that "justification by faith" comes before the new birth -- according to your "logic"?
Do you see how your mind can create havoc?
PENDLETON ON REGENERATION
Bob to Charles:
Scott Morgan has flung wild allegations, Charles, to the effect that we are not sound in the faith because we do not approve of the "born again before faith" heresy of the "baby regenerationist" Reformed (Presbyterian) camp -- as this heresy is presented in the writings of pedos such as Shedd, Berkhof, Frame, Sproul, and their disciples, including at least some at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.
Below is a quotation from the Baptist theologian, James M. Pendleton (1811-1891) preacher, pastor, educator and scholar. Pendleton is widely known for the influential books, Pendleton's Baptist Church Manual and Christian Doctrines, A Compendium of Theology. Pendleton taught at Crozer Baptist Theological Seminary near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and more biographical material on Pendleton is easily accessible by "Googling" the Internet.
Pendleton's view is the same for which we have contended, and which is presented in the 1689 Baptist Confession on "Effectual Calling" -- which affirms that BOTH the Spirit and the Word are essential in "regeneration," or the "new birth," in bringing sinners to Christ for salvation.
Christian Doctrines by J. M. Pendleton, page 262, 263:
>>
The means of regeneration.
The instrumentality employed is the Gospel, the Word of God. This is a controverted point. Some argue that God renews the soul without the intervention of means [Bob's insert: Hardshells, Shedd-Berkhof Reformedites]. Others suppose that the term "regeneration" may be used both in a limited and in an enlarged sense. They concede that in the latter sense the Word of God is the means of regeneration. Without dwelling on these different views, I quote the following passags as proof of the instrumentality of the divine truth in regeneration:
"In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).
"Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth" (James 1:18).
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever" (1 Peter 1:23).
There is, as we have seen, a sense in which we are born of the Spirit, and these passages teach that there is a sense in which we are begotten or born of the Word of God. I know of no way of harmonizing the two views but by attributing regeneration to the agency of the Spirit and the instrumentality of the truth.
God uses MEANS in the natural world, and why should He act on a different principle in the moral world? He does not. The gift of the Bible and the institution of Christian churches with a Gospel ministry prove that He does not. I suppose that the Spirit of God, in regenerating the heart, makes use of scriptural truth previously lodged in the understanding.
>>
Pendleton therefore held -- similar to Stephen Charnock, John Owen, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, A. H. Strong, Abraham Booth, Alexander Carson, John Gill, C. H. Spurgeon, B. H. Carroll, John L. Dagg, J. P. Boyce, and others -- including our Baptist Confessions of Faith -- that "regeneration" is solely of the efficient power of the Spirit in conjunction with the instrumentality of the Word of God as the "means."
Pendleton shows that he was aware of the view that "God renews the soul without the intervention of means," as taught by the Hybrid Calvinists and Hardshells. and he rejected that view.
Was he, too, "not a Baptist," Brother Scott?
Anonymous, I accidently deleted one of your comments. Sorry. You can repost it if you like
Charles
Post a Comment
<< Home