James White & the Baptist Confession
DOES JAMES WHITE BELIEVE THE1689 LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION?
In James White's recent video, he claims to believe the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith on "Effectual Calling." Unfortunately, he does not give credible evidence that this is the case, nor does he even accurately read what the Confession actually says.
Where, for instance, does the Confession ever affirm that "regeneration must take place first," as James teaches in his writings such as "The Potter's Freedom" (page 84) and in his debate book with Dave Hunt where he defends the heresy that we must be "born again before we can exercise true, saving faith" (Debating Calvinism, page 198)?
While James misunderstands, misapplies, and misinterprets 1 John 5:1 to teach his heresy, where in the Baptist Confession does it teach that 1 John 5:1 is understood to teach that "regeneration" precedes faith? While James claims to "exegete" Scripture, he is more adept at eisegesis -- reading his own ideas into the text.
When and where did James White ever demonstrate that my charge -- that he does not affirm the teaching of the 1689 LBCF -- is false and has been refuted?
Has James repudiated what he presented in the debate with Dave Hunt -- wherein James presented the non-creedal, unscriptural "born again before faith" balderash? Has he repudiated his "exegeet'n" on John's writings wherein he claims that regeneration precedes faith, or as we like to express it, that one is "born again before he believes in Christ"?
Those phantasmagorical ideas, borrowed from the likes of Sproul, Shedd, and Berkhof, and other Pedobaptist (baby baptizer) sources, will as likely be found in the 1689 LBCF as readily as one will find the baptism of babies!
All of that sort of stuff is PEDO-REGENERATIONIST doctrine, not Baptist.
It was hatched by the Pedos and you will find it in their hatcheries. Even pedo-regenerationists Shedd and Berkhof admit that the same vanities which James presents on regeneration are not even in the Westminster Confession (aka LBCF for Baptists). The "Ordo Paludal" had not even been fully fermented to its more "developed" level in 1689, according to the Pedo theologians, Berkhof, Shedd, and Packer.
What James teaches on "regeneration" is about as CLOSE to the teaching of the 1689 London Baptist Confession as the HARDSHELL BAPTIST CHURCH where James was invited to preach this type of doctrine awhile back.
We would be delighted to meet James in an "exegesis" debate on either the Scriptures or the 1689 London Confession of Faith, or both, but the prospects for such a debate are about as prospective as a debate with any of the advocates of the "regeneration precedes faith" delusion.
James prefers much more "easy pickins," like Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Gays, etc. I understand some of these types even get paid and go on free cruises to debate with James, he is so eager to "make a name" for himself as a debater.
posted by Bob L. Ross @ 1:53 PM
11 Comments:
Where, for instance, does the Confession ever affirm that "regeneration must take place first," as James teaches in his writings such as "The Potter's Freedom" (page 84) and in his debate book with Dave Hunt where he defends the heresy that we must be "born again before we can exercise true, saving faith" (Debating Calvinism, page 198)?
Um, here...
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1. Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Canticles 1:4 )
2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )
JAMES WHITE EVADES
YET AGAIN
Ross: Long on Claims, Short on Substance -- is the headline of James White's latest. HERE
Poor James -- he seems to be longing so much to have a debate with someone who is "strident" against "Reformed" theology, but he can't seem to attract any interest. Geisler won't meet him, Hunt won't meet him, etc. etc.
When we offered to accommodate James, he evaded us. It would be too "hard" to debate Ross. Ross is just like "Ruckman," James says.
Instead, he proposed that we engage in "exegesis." Well, we offered to do that in an exegesis debate, but he evidently will have none of it. We just can't seem to satisfy the man! He won't debate and it appears he won't "exegeet" -- at least, not with Ross.
James plainly teaches in his books that we must "be born again before we can exercise true, saving faith," that "regeneration must take place first" (Debating Calvinism, page 198; The Potter's Freedom, page 84).
Yet he claims to believe the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which nowhere teaches that one is "born again before faith," or "regeneration must take place first." See my article, Regeneration--
Calvinism
James alleges he gave the "evidence." What evidence? He said he was reding from a "modern" version of the Confession -- a version which was patched together by Hybrid Calvinists and used by the Flounders on their website. Is that his "evidence"? Balderdash!
The fact is --
Out of one side of his mouth James would have us believe that he was "born again" before he believed in Christ, and therefore he was "saved" without believing in Christ.
Out of the other side of his mouth, he wants us to believe that he adheres to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which teaches that sinners are enabled to "believe to the saving of their souls" (Chapter 14)?
How can James have been saved BEFORE he believed, yet also claim he "believed to the saving of his soul"? Was not his soul "saved" when he was "born again" BEFORE he believed?
Dave Hunt fairly blistered James on this in the Debating Calvinism book. While we don't agree with Dave's theology on some other issues, we give him credit for holding James' "feet to the fire" on this, relying a lot of quotations from C. H. Spurgeon who repudiates the view held by James White. See Spurgeon vs. "ordo salutis"
I only know two sources which have tampered with the 1689 London Baptist Confession: (1) The Hardshell Baptists (HERE) and (2) the Hybrid Calvinists who patched together the "modern version" which James quoted and which is used by the Flounders on their website.
If James believes "born again" is before "faith," where in his "Baptist Confession" does it teach such piffle?
I have demonstrated time-and-again that NO BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH teaches the "pre-faith regeneration" heresy.
It is found primarily in Pedobaptist (baby baptizer) theology books and works, such as those by Shedd, Berkhof, R. C. Sproul, J. I Packer, John Frame, John Murray, Iain Murray, Grudem, Reymond, "Reformed" websites and similar sources. As I recall, even James has admitted learning it from R. C. Sproul, and Sproul says he imbibed it in a Pedobaptist seminary.
I think James just needs to make up his mind: Is he going to be a Pedobaptist on the new birth, or is he going to be a Baptist? He can't have it both ways.
Amen!
God bless,
Stephen
QUOTES FROM THE
CONFESSION OF FAITH
Aaron Snell said...
Um, here...
I suppose you are "new" to this blog, Aaron, for we have discussed this 1689 Baptist Confession numerous times.
And the fact is, Aaron, the Confession nowhere says regeneration precedes faith, nor that one is born again before faith, nor that any pre-faith work of the Holy Spirit constitutes regeneration or the new birth.
Even Erroll Hulse, the man who published the "modern version" of the Baptist Confession from which James White read, says, "there is a work of the Holy Spirit that falls short of regeneration . . . there are those illuninated but not regenerated. . . not all those who have been illuminated have been regenerated. All this [i. e. illumination, conviction, reformation]can transpire without the person being born again" (The Great Invitation, pages 81, 82).
In fact, in Chapter 13, the "order" is put as "united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated." Notice that "regeneration" is placed after "effectual calling."
Union with Christ and effectual calling are what simultaneously constitute regeneration.
In fact, in Chapter 10, which you quoted, the first item mentioned is effectual calling "by His Word and spirit."
The Word is therefore the Spirit's instrument of His efficient and monergistic power (1 Thess. 1:5)which "quickens" (John 6:63), "calls" (2 Thess. 2:14), "begets" (1 Cor. 4:15, and thereby produces faith (James 1:17; 1 Peter 1:23), and "AFTER that ye believed ye were sealed by the Holy Spirit" (Eph. 1:13) -- all of which demonstrates that regeneration does not precede faith, but is the EFFECT of the Spirit's monergistic, efficient use of means in producing all the elements essential to the New Birth.
Also, on SAVING FAITH, in Chapter 14 of the Confession, saving faith is said to be "ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word," and by means of the Word "the elect are enabled to BELIEVE TO THE SAVING OF THEIR SOULS," and this is described as being "the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts."
As C. H. Spurgeon said:
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.
Once again, here is the impeccable syllogism of Dr. B. H. Carroll, Founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas:
DR. CARROLL'S IMPECCABLE SYLLOGISM
(1) Every one born of God has the right be called a child of God.
(2) But no one has the right until he believes in Jesus.
(3) Therefore the new birth is not completed without faith."
Page 287 of Volume 10, Part I on The Gospels, An Interpretation of the English Bible.
Bob,
Yes, I am new. Hello.
So just to clarify, when the Confession speaks of "being quickened [made alive] and renewed by the Holy Spirit," which is what enables one to have faith, you think this is not referring to regeneration? If the two sections of Chapter 10 I quoted are not talking about regeneration, then the Confession nowhere talks about what regeneration is.
Have you ever considered that perhaps what you are calling "regeneration" and what White, Sproul, et al are calling "regeneration" are two different things, and hence the disagreement?
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?
Aaron Snell said...
Have you ever considered that perhaps what you are calling "regeneration" and what White, Sproul, et al are calling "regeneration" are two different things, and hence the disagreement?
The 1689 uses the term "regeneration" in Chapter 13, and here the "order" is "united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated."
It further indicates that these works are "by his word and Spirit," which is consistent with Chapter 10 where "effectual calling" is said to be "by his word and Spirit"
The Confession, therefore, does not isolate a "Spirit alone" calling or regeneration from "by his word" as His instrumentality.
The Reformed view, beginning with its concept of "infant regeneration," has a clear separation -- both "logically" and "formally" -- between the Spirit and the Word. The Reformed view is that the infant is supposedly "regenerated" before he can hear and believe the Word, which is supposed to come in later years. This is called a "direct operation" by the Spirit without and apart from the use of the Word as the "means" -- according to the Reformed Systematic theologians such as W. G. T. Shedd and Louis Berkhof, for instance.
To be "consistent," these Reformed sources apply the same "model" or "paradigm" to adult "regeneration." It is viewed as a "direct operation" apart from the Word as the necessary instrumentality.
So, it does seem to be the case that the Reformed have a "different" concept in mind in contrast to the view of the Confession that regeneration is "by the Word and Spirit."
The Reformed view has one "regenerated" before, apart from, and and without faith in Christ. It would be impossible to find a person in Scripture who is described as "born again" or "regenerated" who does not have faith in Christ (1 John 5:1, 4).
One who has the Son (by faith) has life; one who does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:11).
Paul says we are "begotten through the Gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15) and "called by the Gospel" (2 Thess. 2:14).
The Word, or Gospel, therefore, is the Spirit's instrumentality in the new birth, or regeneration.
Bob,
I am here to have a conversation. If I ask you to clarify your views, but you don't answer, I'm left to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about. The response you did give was not helpful, but maybe I was not clear in my last question.
Let's try this. Here's my first question and claim again; can we start here without getting off onto your critique of what you think the Reformed view is?
So just to clarify, when the Confession speaks of "being quickened [made alive] and renewed by the Holy Spirit," which is what enables one to have faith, you think this is not referring to regeneration? If the two sections of Chapter 10 I quoted are not talking about regeneration, then the Confession nowhere talks about what regeneration is.
REPLY TO AARON
Chapter 10 of the Confession on "Effectual Calling" obviously deals with what is also called "Regeneration" in another chapter (13).
The Confession covers the several elements which constitute the New Birth -- everything from hearing the Word to "believing to the saving of their souls" -- and all "is the work of the Spirit of Christ" and "wrought by the ministry of the Word." (chapter 14).
Nowhere, however, does the Confession place the New Birth at the point of "quickening" or at the point of any other necessary constituent element prior to faith itself. "Quickening" is simply one of the necessary elements in the whole matter. It is not "whosoever is quickened" that is born of God, but "whosoever believeth."
If you were not "hung up" on "born again before faith," you might not find this so difficult to comprehend.
Bob,
I don't understand the "hung up" bit, or why you'd make a judgment on my personal internal states. You don't know me, my theological positions, or what I'm "hung up" about, so I'd ask you to refrain from making these kind of comments.
That being said, however, I think this response was much more helpful, and I thank you for that. So you think that "being quickened [made alive] and renewed by the Holy Spirit" is speaking about a part of renegeration, but only a part, correct?
This is exactly what I was getting at in my last question about you and White talking about two different things when you say "regeneration." For White, Sproul, etc., the quickening and renewing of the HS is regeneration; for you, regeneration has more to it. So really, you should stop saying that they're wrong in putting regeneration logically prior to faith, and just say that they're wrong on what renegeration is. Because, if what they're saying is that bringing one's heart from spiritual death to spiritual life by the renewing of the Holy Spirit must come first before one can have/exercise faith, then of course they're right, and obviously Confessional. So the question really becomes, "Is the quickening and renewal of the HS that enables one to have faith properly called "regeneration" or "the new birth", or not? Does that make sense?
You said a couple other things I'd like to address. but I'm leery of derailing the progress here, so I'll just ask that you respond to the above before you respond to what follows.
First, you've made much of the supposed order of "united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated" in Chapter 13, as if the fact that regeneration is listed last that this impies that it is last in some sequence or order. To wit, you said, "In fact, in Chapter 13, the "order" is put as "united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated." Notice that "regeneration" is placed after "effectual calling."
Sure, but also notice that "effectual calling" is placed after "united with Christ." To be consistent in your argumentation, then, you would also have to say that one is united with Christ prior to being effectually called. Is this your position? If not, then you cannot use that order of listing to argue your point - it would be terribly inconsistent.
Second, you said, "It would be impossible to find a person in Scripture who is described as "born again" or "regenerated" who does not have faith in Christ (1 John 5:1, 4)"
To which those who hold to regeneration-preceeding-faith would respond, "Of course you don't find such a person, because regeneration always leads to faith in Christ." In other words, your opponents are not arguing that you do, so it would probably be wise to drop this from your argument.
Thanks for your time.
REFORMED VIEW
Aaron Snell said...
. . . can we start here without getting off onto your critique of what you think the Reformed view is?
Since this blog began in 2006, it has been focusing on the "Reformed view" that one is "born again before faith," otherwise referred to as "pre-faith regeneration" or "regeneration precedes faith" per Reformed writers from whom we have quoted.
We contend that this is theological heterodoxy and biblical heresy. We have further contended that this view was concocted by the Pedobaptists to substantiate the supposed "regeneration" of babies who are alleged to be "covenant children." This alleged
"regeneration" is said to take place "without" the
Word as the instrumental cause, allegedly being a "direct operation" of the Spirit without the use of "means."
Since this view is not affirmed in the Confessions of Faith, we hold that it is non-creedal, and hence unorthodox.
I hardly see how we can discuss the Confessional view without calling attention to the fact that the "Reformed" view is contrary to the Confession of Faith.
REFORMED VIEW
Aaron Snell said...
. . . can we start here without getting off onto your critique of what you think the Reformed view is?
Since this blog began in 2006, it has been focusing on the "Reformed view" that one is "born again before faith," otherwise referred to as "pre-faith regeneration" or "regeneration precedes faith" per Reformed writers from whom we have quoted.
We contend that this is theological heterodoxy and biblical heresy. We have further contended that this view was concocted by the Pedobaptists to substantiate the supposed "regeneration" of babies who are alleged to be "covenant children." This alleged
"regeneration" is said to take place "without" the
Word as the instrumental cause, allegedly being a "direct operation" of the Spirit without the use of "means."
Since this view is not affirmed in the Confessions of Faith, we hold that it is non-creedal, and hence unorthodox.
I hardly see how we can discuss the Confessional view without calling attention to the fact that the "Reformed" view is contrary to the Confession of Faith.
Post a Comment
<< Home