Gene's Diatribe

The following are things that brother Gene Bridges wrote in his "diatribe" against brothers Ross and Charles, and against myself, together with my reply. (emphasis mine)

"Further, Charles simply isn't on my radar, not now, and not in 2 years. The only reason you are on my radar now is because you have chosen to be a follower of this blog. Are you, I wonder, following this blog in order to stir up more strife?"

Is that where you want the discussion to go? To discussing motives for visiting blogs? Impugn my motives, do you? Why? Are you playing God here? Insinuating that I love strife? Why, because I fight Hyperism? Brother Gene, I visit blogs for different reasons. I have been visiting Triablogue because it provided good writings on topics I was interested in. Also, I knew you had your discussions with Charles and Bob, and so I wanted to also follow to see what you might write on Calvinism.

"Indeed, I have little time to deal with people online who are more concerned about being Baptist than being Christian."

Are you not the insinuator and the judge of motives! Now you also insinuate that I am not as holy as you, not as spiritual, a man of strife, but now you imply I am sectarian, and care more for being Baptist than Christian. How did you arrive at those conclusions?

"I am Baptist and I am Reformed, but I am not obsessed with either one.
harping on the doctrines of grace 24/7."

So, I am also "obsessed"? I "harp on" the doctrines of grace 24/7? That is totally uncharitable and demonstrates a "spirit" of superiority. Gene, in all kindness, it is you who are "putting on airs." Perhaps you ought to check all my blogs and look at the wide range of topics in all of them BEFORE you say such things. I wonder, do you "harp on" anything, brother Gene?

"Because Mr. Ross, like Charles, has proven himself to be unteachable, incorrigible, and uncorrectable, I have long since relegated him to the status of the factious man of Titus 3. If Mr. Garrett had bothered to check the archives of this blog, he would know that."

"Proven themselves to be unteachable and incorrigible"? Why, because they do not adopt your "born again before faith" error? You are free not to have dealings with any man, but it seems odd to me that you and James White use such reasons for running from serious discussion. Gene, I have read all your discussions with Bob and Charles. Where did you get the idea that I had not? All I did was cite your promise about engaging Bob and Charles and anyone who writes against the so called "reformed view" of regeneration. But, if you now feel more led to battle the Catholics and Muslims, then go ahead.

"I haven't felt the need to address Ross in about 2 years. I also know, and Mr. Garrett may not, of others who have tried to deal privately with Mr. Ross over the past few years, but to no avail. They have received largely the same sort of treatment from him as have Dr. White and myself."

"Same sort of treatment"? What kind is that? The same kind you dish out to folks like me?

"If you really believe what you believe, demonstrate it.

The same goes for Charles, Mr. Garrett, and Mr. Ross. If you three really believe what you believe about soteriology, then get off your high horse about Founders, James White, myself, and others who differ with you and demonstrate what you believe by interacting with the atheist, the Orthodox, the Romanist, etc. on your blogs. Dare I say, you won't find that at the Flyswatter or the BaptistGadly."

We have, we are, and we will continue to demonstrate it; And, we will continue to hear you all make excuses for why you do not want to debate or discuss the topic with us. Bob writes much against the Pedo Baptists, does that not count? Gene, have you even looked at my other blogs?

"Instead, what you find are endless, pointless, and largely ignored by us (for reasons explained above) posts that do little but seek to stir up strife."

More accusations. More uncharitableness. More excuses. More "pot shots." Ad hominem argumentation and attacks! You talk about how no one will want to engage us because of our poor attitude. Look at your attitude and harsh judgment against us, brother Gene!

"Occasionally, they'll interact with an Arminian (to their credit), but I don't see them doing what Dr. White and his team do or we do here. In other words, it's time for them to demonstrate they can do more than criticize their brothers. If they can't - or won't - then we have no reason to conclude that they want to do nothing more than stir up strife."

So, you and James White are the standard to follow in apologetics? And, ironically, I feel it is you and James who need to "demonstrate they can do more than criticize their brothers." Oh, and now I am a "brother" at last? You have never called me "brother" and yet you say we criticize our "brothers" (you and James and the "reformed" crowd)? Do I not have a right, as you, to "critique" my brother? To judge his teachings? And, to do so is stirring strife? Then, by that definition, are you not guilty of what you condemn?

"Speaking of lies, let's see what Mr. Garrett has cooked up:

He quotes me as follows:

"Regeneration is distinct from salvation in that it leads directly to conversion, which leads to justification leading to the others."

He then comments:

"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?"

How did what I wrote lead to the concept of a "regenerated unbeliever?""

Now, I am a "liar"! What was the lie Gene? I still do not know! You admit that your "ordo salutis" creates a "regenerated unbeliever," at least LOGICALLY!

"Mr. Garrett, a graduate I see Wingate University, apparently needs to retake English 101 with either Dr. Little-Sweat or Dr. Christopher, if they are still teaching, for he suffers from a case of reading incomprehension. Is regeneration the same as "salvation?" No, "salvation" is a much wider concept. It can include "regeneration," it may include others concepts. In context, I am, of course referring to Charles' (and others') continued misuse of theological terminology. To refer to "regeneration" as if it is the same thing as "salvation" is simply sloppy."

Look at your harsh language Gene. Is this not what you decry in Bob, Charles, and myself? Call me inept. Of course, you and James White are such "exegetes" and expert linguists! I did take "Advanced Composition" at Wingate, with a good Phd. professor. Have you all had such classes?

So, one of my lies is saying that regeneration = salvation? You ought to be ashamed for denying that a man who is regenerated is saved!

And we are "ignorant of theological terminology"? You make me chuckle hearing this! You are the one who creates unbiblical terminology! If it is "sloppy" to call a man who is "born again" a "saved" man, then count me guility! Jesus too! And the apostles!

"Did I say anything about regeneration not leading to conversion, and directly so? NO. That's exactly the opposite of what I wrote. I said it leads directly to conversion, and then justification, and "others" (eg. other aspects of "salvation")."

Oh, now regeneration IS an aspect of "salvation"? I thought it wasn't? If regeneration "leads to" conversion, then conversion is no part of regeneration. If it "leads to" faith, then faith is no part of it. Anyone can see the difficult spot you and White are in with this kind of "doubletalk."

"When speaking of the order of salvation (ordo salutis), Reformed theology always and everywhere insists that regeneration precedes faith."

That is a falsehood. All modern "Reformed" theology, such as you and White promote, is quite different on this point that the older Reformers, such as Calvin himself. Was Calvin a "Reformed"? Did he believe faith followed regeneration?

"Use of means: In the narrow usage, referring to the Holy Spirit’s actual phenomenological task of resurrecting the unbeliever’s soul to new life, there is no means as such, it is His work alone."

Brother Gene, here is where you and White glaringly contradict yourselves! You all will affirm, out of one side of your mouths, that you believe in "regeneration through the means of the gospel," but then you will elsewhere say that the gospel cannot be a means, as you do here! Here you "shell down the corn," come right up and aver that regeneration is accomplished without the means of the gospel! And yet you claim to be "Baptist" and "Reformed" and biblical! And, you get angry if one calls you a Hyper Calvinist, or a neo Hardshell!

You cite from monergism.com. Do you agree with Hendryx? He also believed in regeneration without the gospel as do the Hardshells. He also, like the first Hardshells, believed in a "three stage model" of the "new birth." Do you?

You cite Boyce but Boyce, after writing what you cited, said this:

"From the Scriptural teaching we see that the whole work of Regeneration and Conversion is included under the one term regeneration."

So, do you agree with Boyce on this?

"So, Mr. Garrett, I do not affirm that a person can be a "regenerated unbeliever." I affirm exactly the opposite, insofar as the order is logical, not temporal - a caveat that your fellow chronic strifemaker have called, "doubletalk." I took that then to mean, as I still do, that they would rather be dishonest and drop the caveats that I have given than actually speak honestly."

No, Gene, you are just kidding yourself. You admit that, logically speaking, your ordo salutis creates a "regenerated unbeliever." This is real "doubletalk."

"You, Mr. Garrett, would do well not to associate with these individuals.

So, before you go casting about with the questions you have asked of us, Mr. Garrett, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the archive functions of this blog and others. It's really not difficult. Search Engines are your friend."

I have answered these things. But, these words demonstrate further, don't they, your great literary skills, and your Christian kindness, and your deep humility?