In the comment section of the Founder's Journal blog, from three years ago, I noticed the following two comments from "Reformed" apologist Gene Bridges of Triablogue.
"Gene M Bridges said...
"If you feel you can exegetically refute Reformed theology, then start a blog yourself and I and my brothers here will gladly engage you on each issue."
This was said to "Charles" of the Calvinistflyswatter blog who swats the flies, together with Bob Ross, of the Hyper Calvinists who put the new birth before faith in Christ. Has he fulfilled his word?
Charles and Bob have done plenty of writing and "exegeting" scriptures that disprove Hyperism. Has Gene commented each time in refutation? If he has, I have not seen it. Not many of his "Reformed" cohorts have challenged Charles and Bob.
Gene also said, in the same lengthy comment,
"Regeneration is distinct from salvation in that it leads directly to conversion, which leads to justification leading to the others."
http://www.founders.org/blog/2005/08/annual-church-profiles.html
Is this so? Is this not a bunch of nonsense? Does it not deny that regeneration = salvation? Not only does the "ordo polutis" of Gene create the monstrosity of a "regenerated unbeliever," but also a "regenerated yet condemned" unbeliever! What kind of "regeneration" is it that does not convert, save, or justify?
No comments:
Post a Comment