Brethren James White and Gene Bridges believe I need to learn how to be more internet savvy in the use of "search engines." Well, I am willing to admit that these brethren have it on me here.
However, why don't they use a bible search engine and come up with a verse that says men are "born again before and apart from faith"?
Sep 12, 2008
Sep 11, 2008
White on Garrett
It seems I got the attention of brother James White!
He wrote an entry in his blog yesterday about my entry about the debate he had with Wilkins. His entry was titled - "Wilkins and A False Gospel Revisited."
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2849
He begins with these words:
"One of Bob Ross' devotees, a fellow named Stephen Garrett, posted this on his blog today:
How many know of the famous debate that James White had with Bob Wilkins in Oklahoma City on April 22, 2005? How many know that James White tried to defend his "born again before faith" heresy in this debate? Does James sell the video of this debate on his web site? Does he promote this debate like he does the others?
I had to chuckle when I read this."
Well, what can I say?
First, I suppose I can say that we now have each given the other a "chuckle," for I also "chuckled" when I read the words of brother James. In fact, James has given me lots of "chuckles" over the past couple years, as I have read his blog and other writings, particularly the laughable things he has had to say about brother Bob Ross over the years! I certainly have gotten some "chuckles" watching him wear his various colored "caps"! lol
Second, it makes one laugh to see the literary style of brother James, his choice and use of words. He is such a poet! He characterizes me as a "devotee" of brother Bob Ross. And I am a "fellow named"! Go ahead James, "poison the well"! Use "ad hominem" argumentation! Use "red herrings"! Make insinuations! Accuse and falsely characterize!
No, brother James, the truth of the matter is that both brother Ross and myself are "devotees" of historic Baptist doctrine, of creedal Calvinism, and not your "hybrid" variety, your Hyper Calvinism, your "born again before faith" error.
James said further:
"I would very much like to have the video available, just like I'd like to have the video of the debate with Crossan and Borg available, but when there are production and editing issues with the video, that puts it at the end of the line, at least until the others, that have no such problems, are finished. We don't have big donors to pour money through our doors so that we can hire folks to do these things. It is especially time consuming to attempt to drop powerpoints into the videos, which will be needed for this one."
"I would very much like the video available." Is that so? I guess we will just take your word for that, brother James. But, it seems like to me that when you really want something done, you get it done. Maybe I am wrong, however.
Is it a money problem? No "big donors"? How about a bunch of little donors? Maybe you could take advance orders on this debate and pay for the cost? Are there not a lot of people interested in the issue of whether one is born again apart from faith? How about this idea? Suppose we line up a debate, with either Bob Ross or myself, on the proposition of whether the new birth is accomplished prior to faith? Maybe we can get the video right this time and you will have opportunity of selling those videos? At least you can sell your books and other materials at the debate, correct? Don't you think, brother James, that many would like to hear you defend your views against brother Ross or myself?
Who needs the powerpoints? I have debated many times without them. Can't we just hear you make the points? All the Campbellites I have debated could not survive without their pre-canned powerpoint charts! It is a shame that Paul and Peter did not have their charts!
James continues:
"But since Mr. Garrett doesn't think we've been pushing the debate hard enough (exactly how that is to be measured, we are not told), maybe I will have to cover it after the Madrid debate? I have, in fact, commented on it a number of times, but Garrett conveniently forgets to mention that. He does, however, demonstrate that he is a bit challenged in the use of a search engine."
Well, each person will have to judge for himself. About using "search engines" and my inaptitude there, again, each person can judge for himself. If one puts into Yahoo or Google the key words to find info on the debate, he will not find the info I have cited. Brother James, if you have some info on doing internet searches you want to share, let me have it. Yes, I probably could have searched a little deeper. However, that was one of the purposes of my entry! Ask questions and get answers! Which I did! lol
James says further:
From the comments by Bob Wilkins, it seems the debate was supposed to be made available to the public through Alpha and Omega, but if it is available, I have not seen it.
"If Mr. Garrett would open the "store" link at aomin.org, go to the search section, click on "advanced," enter "Wilkin" and check the "search descriptions" box, he would find this. That will display for him 444MP3, which, as you can see here, contains a rather extensive description of the debate. One will note that this was not just inserted or something, it has been available since shortly after the debate itself."
Thanks James for the help! That is what I asked for! But, what is astonishing to me, brother James, is why now? Why do you respond now? I have written you an email challenging you to a debate, but silence from you. I have written blog entries about you and your aberrant views on the new birth. But, silence from you. And now you respond? Why now?
James said further:
"Later Garrett reproduces a quote from a "disappointed James White supporter." Oh my! Anonymous "supporters"! Goodness. Pick up the mp3. Listen and be amazed. And wonder at someone like Garrett who claims to be a "Calvinist" and yet would support the Hodges/Wilkins position, as he does in this entry."
Does James not think that he has any "disappointed supporters"? Apparently not. Why not have a debate on the issue that you discussed with Wilkins in your first hour of debate? Are you afraid you might increase your number of "disappointed supporters"?
Oh brother James! You are so charitable, so full of grace, so kind! "Someone like Garrett"? What does that mean? Aren't you the insinuator! Surely you know what my views are, do you not? I am more Calvinist than you are, brother James! Calvin believed that faith preceded regeneration. Now, who is more Calvinist?
Brother James, the challenge is still out there. Come and debate the issue before the Baptist and Calvinist family!
He wrote an entry in his blog yesterday about my entry about the debate he had with Wilkins. His entry was titled - "Wilkins and A False Gospel Revisited."
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2849
He begins with these words:
"One of Bob Ross' devotees, a fellow named Stephen Garrett, posted this on his blog today:
How many know of the famous debate that James White had with Bob Wilkins in Oklahoma City on April 22, 2005? How many know that James White tried to defend his "born again before faith" heresy in this debate? Does James sell the video of this debate on his web site? Does he promote this debate like he does the others?
I had to chuckle when I read this."
Well, what can I say?
First, I suppose I can say that we now have each given the other a "chuckle," for I also "chuckled" when I read the words of brother James. In fact, James has given me lots of "chuckles" over the past couple years, as I have read his blog and other writings, particularly the laughable things he has had to say about brother Bob Ross over the years! I certainly have gotten some "chuckles" watching him wear his various colored "caps"! lol
Second, it makes one laugh to see the literary style of brother James, his choice and use of words. He is such a poet! He characterizes me as a "devotee" of brother Bob Ross. And I am a "fellow named"! Go ahead James, "poison the well"! Use "ad hominem" argumentation! Use "red herrings"! Make insinuations! Accuse and falsely characterize!
No, brother James, the truth of the matter is that both brother Ross and myself are "devotees" of historic Baptist doctrine, of creedal Calvinism, and not your "hybrid" variety, your Hyper Calvinism, your "born again before faith" error.
James said further:
"I would very much like to have the video available, just like I'd like to have the video of the debate with Crossan and Borg available, but when there are production and editing issues with the video, that puts it at the end of the line, at least until the others, that have no such problems, are finished. We don't have big donors to pour money through our doors so that we can hire folks to do these things. It is especially time consuming to attempt to drop powerpoints into the videos, which will be needed for this one."
"I would very much like the video available." Is that so? I guess we will just take your word for that, brother James. But, it seems like to me that when you really want something done, you get it done. Maybe I am wrong, however.
Is it a money problem? No "big donors"? How about a bunch of little donors? Maybe you could take advance orders on this debate and pay for the cost? Are there not a lot of people interested in the issue of whether one is born again apart from faith? How about this idea? Suppose we line up a debate, with either Bob Ross or myself, on the proposition of whether the new birth is accomplished prior to faith? Maybe we can get the video right this time and you will have opportunity of selling those videos? At least you can sell your books and other materials at the debate, correct? Don't you think, brother James, that many would like to hear you defend your views against brother Ross or myself?
Who needs the powerpoints? I have debated many times without them. Can't we just hear you make the points? All the Campbellites I have debated could not survive without their pre-canned powerpoint charts! It is a shame that Paul and Peter did not have their charts!
James continues:
"But since Mr. Garrett doesn't think we've been pushing the debate hard enough (exactly how that is to be measured, we are not told), maybe I will have to cover it after the Madrid debate? I have, in fact, commented on it a number of times, but Garrett conveniently forgets to mention that. He does, however, demonstrate that he is a bit challenged in the use of a search engine."
Well, each person will have to judge for himself. About using "search engines" and my inaptitude there, again, each person can judge for himself. If one puts into Yahoo or Google the key words to find info on the debate, he will not find the info I have cited. Brother James, if you have some info on doing internet searches you want to share, let me have it. Yes, I probably could have searched a little deeper. However, that was one of the purposes of my entry! Ask questions and get answers! Which I did! lol
James says further:
From the comments by Bob Wilkins, it seems the debate was supposed to be made available to the public through Alpha and Omega, but if it is available, I have not seen it.
"If Mr. Garrett would open the "store" link at aomin.org, go to the search section, click on "advanced," enter "Wilkin" and check the "search descriptions" box, he would find this. That will display for him 444MP3, which, as you can see here, contains a rather extensive description of the debate. One will note that this was not just inserted or something, it has been available since shortly after the debate itself."
Thanks James for the help! That is what I asked for! But, what is astonishing to me, brother James, is why now? Why do you respond now? I have written you an email challenging you to a debate, but silence from you. I have written blog entries about you and your aberrant views on the new birth. But, silence from you. And now you respond? Why now?
James said further:
"Later Garrett reproduces a quote from a "disappointed James White supporter." Oh my! Anonymous "supporters"! Goodness. Pick up the mp3. Listen and be amazed. And wonder at someone like Garrett who claims to be a "Calvinist" and yet would support the Hodges/Wilkins position, as he does in this entry."
Does James not think that he has any "disappointed supporters"? Apparently not. Why not have a debate on the issue that you discussed with Wilkins in your first hour of debate? Are you afraid you might increase your number of "disappointed supporters"?
Oh brother James! You are so charitable, so full of grace, so kind! "Someone like Garrett"? What does that mean? Aren't you the insinuator! Surely you know what my views are, do you not? I am more Calvinist than you are, brother James! Calvin believed that faith preceded regeneration. Now, who is more Calvinist?
Brother James, the challenge is still out there. Come and debate the issue before the Baptist and Calvinist family!
Sep 10, 2008
Hanserd Knolly's
Hanserd Knolly's
Signer of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
"By the new man here, we are to understand (as it was meant by the Apostle) a true BELIEVER, or a faithful brother in Christ, one sanctified in Christ Jesus, called a Saint; who is redeemed in the spirit of his mind, and hath put on the new man. (Eph.4:23-24) Which is done, when by the mighty operation of the Holy Spirit, in the promises given unto us, we are MADE partakers of the Divine Nature. (II Pet.1:3,4) Thus being by the Spirit and Faith united with Christ, we are made a new creature, or creation, (II Cor. 5:17) have a new heart (Ezek.36:26,27) and walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:4) And such may be said to have put on the new man, the sum then is this: "Christ is all, and in all, in every true believer, in every justified sanctified person, who hath a new heart, and walk in newness of life."
"But some may thus say within them selves, I hope my soul is in a better condition; I am not so wicked and carnal as some others are, neither am I so vile a sinner as I have been formerly; but I am somewhat reformed, and have forsaken my sinful course, and begin to delight to hear Sermons, and I pray with my family. To this I would answer, although your condition be not so desperate as others, who have lived long under ordinary means of grace, and yet are not at all wrought upon, I must tell you, Professors may (through strong conviction, horror of conscience, and fears of hell) leave the Acts of some sins, and may customarily perform some religious duties, & yet be not regenerated. Professors may have leaves like the unfruitful Fig tree, and Lamps like the five foolish virgins, they may seem to be religious, and have a form of godliness; and not be a New creature, or creation. I might instance many such in the Scriptures. Herod, (Mark 6:20) heard John gladly, and did many things. Saul, (I Sam. 10:6-9) was turned into another man, had another heart, yet unconverted: So thou mayest be another man; and not a New man; may have another heart, but not a new heart.
By incohabition of His Holy Spirit, (Gal.4:6) and by communication of His saving faith. (Eph. 3:17,47) Christ is in your hearts...
Let me tell you, God gives Christ upon Gospel terms, which are these three:
First, God in the dispensation of the Gospel propounds Christ to LOST sinners, as the ONLY necessary, and All sufficient means of salvation: Christ is the ONLY NECESSARY MEANS OF SALVATION. (Acts 4:12) Neither is there salvation in any other. And Christ is the All-sufficient means of salvation, so that we need NONE BUT HIM. (Heb. 7:25) He is able to save them to the uttermost, &c.
Secondly, God doth give Christ to lost sinners without respect to price or person. He invites them that have no money, to come and buy wine, and milk (that is to say, Christ) without price. (Isa. 55:1) And any one that will are invited to take Christ freely. (Rev. 22:17) And, whosoever will, let him take the water of life (that is, Christ) freely.
Thirdly, God requires, that those, who do receive Him SHALL DEPART from iniquity. (lI Tim. 2:19) "Live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world." (Titus 2:11-15) And that they SHALL FAIL ALL, LOSE ALL, and have ALL for the sake of Christ, and take up the cross and follow Him.
You will say to me, Alas, here is my misery, to wit, although God propound Christ upon good terms to poor sinners, to me among others, I have no power of myself to receive Christ, to believe in Him, and accept of Him. True, it is not (as I said) in him, that willeth, nor of him that runneth but of God, who sheweth mercy (Rom. 9:16) It is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, which must be put forth in your hearts, to MAKE you believe also, according to the working of His mighty power, which He WROUGHT in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead. (Eph. 1:19-20) And you ought to wait on God in the diligent use of means until the day of His power come upon you, and then you shall be a willing, a believing people. (Psa. 110:3) I may exhort you to repent of your wickedness, profaneness, &c. as Peter did: (Acts 8:22) But God must GIVE you repentance unto life. (Acts 11:18) It is my duty to preach the Gospel to you, and to exhort you to seek Christ, (Acts 17:22,27) but it is the mere mercy and free grace of God to DRIVE you to Christ, which nothing but His everlasting love can move Him to do. (Jere. 31:3) You ought to seek, and wait, ask, and use all the means which God hath appointed, and afforded you, both secret, private, and public. (Rev. 2:29) But God must make the means effectual. (Acts 16:14) And therefore I must say, it is not in me, I cannot draw you to Christ, that is the Father's work. (John 6:44) But having exhorted you to seek Him in the use of means, there I must leave you to wait on God for the moving of His Holy Spirit where you must lie and continue like the poor impotent man at the pool of Bethesda for healing: And though as he did, so you may see many a lame, blind, deaf, dumb, naked-leprous soul get healing and go away rejoicing and praising God, and you remain still so impotent, that you cannot get into the Fountain, set open for sin and for uncleanness, nor have any that can help you in, that you may be cured: yet be not disheartened, as Christ came suddenly and unexpectedly, and healed the impotent man after long waiting; so Christ will come according to His promise to your souls that seek Him. (Mal.3:1) The "The Lord whom you seek shall come, shall suddenly come, saith the Lord of Hosts."
Christ is All and in All
By Hanserd Knollys
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/hk_christisall.html
Signer of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
"By the new man here, we are to understand (as it was meant by the Apostle) a true BELIEVER, or a faithful brother in Christ, one sanctified in Christ Jesus, called a Saint; who is redeemed in the spirit of his mind, and hath put on the new man. (Eph.4:23-24) Which is done, when by the mighty operation of the Holy Spirit, in the promises given unto us, we are MADE partakers of the Divine Nature. (II Pet.1:3,4) Thus being by the Spirit and Faith united with Christ, we are made a new creature, or creation, (II Cor. 5:17) have a new heart (Ezek.36:26,27) and walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:4) And such may be said to have put on the new man, the sum then is this: "Christ is all, and in all, in every true believer, in every justified sanctified person, who hath a new heart, and walk in newness of life."
"But some may thus say within them selves, I hope my soul is in a better condition; I am not so wicked and carnal as some others are, neither am I so vile a sinner as I have been formerly; but I am somewhat reformed, and have forsaken my sinful course, and begin to delight to hear Sermons, and I pray with my family. To this I would answer, although your condition be not so desperate as others, who have lived long under ordinary means of grace, and yet are not at all wrought upon, I must tell you, Professors may (through strong conviction, horror of conscience, and fears of hell) leave the Acts of some sins, and may customarily perform some religious duties, & yet be not regenerated. Professors may have leaves like the unfruitful Fig tree, and Lamps like the five foolish virgins, they may seem to be religious, and have a form of godliness; and not be a New creature, or creation. I might instance many such in the Scriptures. Herod, (Mark 6:20) heard John gladly, and did many things. Saul, (I Sam. 10:6-9) was turned into another man, had another heart, yet unconverted: So thou mayest be another man; and not a New man; may have another heart, but not a new heart.
By incohabition of His Holy Spirit, (Gal.4:6) and by communication of His saving faith. (Eph. 3:17,47) Christ is in your hearts...
Let me tell you, God gives Christ upon Gospel terms, which are these three:
First, God in the dispensation of the Gospel propounds Christ to LOST sinners, as the ONLY necessary, and All sufficient means of salvation: Christ is the ONLY NECESSARY MEANS OF SALVATION. (Acts 4:12) Neither is there salvation in any other. And Christ is the All-sufficient means of salvation, so that we need NONE BUT HIM. (Heb. 7:25) He is able to save them to the uttermost, &c.
Secondly, God doth give Christ to lost sinners without respect to price or person. He invites them that have no money, to come and buy wine, and milk (that is to say, Christ) without price. (Isa. 55:1) And any one that will are invited to take Christ freely. (Rev. 22:17) And, whosoever will, let him take the water of life (that is, Christ) freely.
Thirdly, God requires, that those, who do receive Him SHALL DEPART from iniquity. (lI Tim. 2:19) "Live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world." (Titus 2:11-15) And that they SHALL FAIL ALL, LOSE ALL, and have ALL for the sake of Christ, and take up the cross and follow Him.
You will say to me, Alas, here is my misery, to wit, although God propound Christ upon good terms to poor sinners, to me among others, I have no power of myself to receive Christ, to believe in Him, and accept of Him. True, it is not (as I said) in him, that willeth, nor of him that runneth but of God, who sheweth mercy (Rom. 9:16) It is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, which must be put forth in your hearts, to MAKE you believe also, according to the working of His mighty power, which He WROUGHT in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead. (Eph. 1:19-20) And you ought to wait on God in the diligent use of means until the day of His power come upon you, and then you shall be a willing, a believing people. (Psa. 110:3) I may exhort you to repent of your wickedness, profaneness, &c. as Peter did: (Acts 8:22) But God must GIVE you repentance unto life. (Acts 11:18) It is my duty to preach the Gospel to you, and to exhort you to seek Christ, (Acts 17:22,27) but it is the mere mercy and free grace of God to DRIVE you to Christ, which nothing but His everlasting love can move Him to do. (Jere. 31:3) You ought to seek, and wait, ask, and use all the means which God hath appointed, and afforded you, both secret, private, and public. (Rev. 2:29) But God must make the means effectual. (Acts 16:14) And therefore I must say, it is not in me, I cannot draw you to Christ, that is the Father's work. (John 6:44) But having exhorted you to seek Him in the use of means, there I must leave you to wait on God for the moving of His Holy Spirit where you must lie and continue like the poor impotent man at the pool of Bethesda for healing: And though as he did, so you may see many a lame, blind, deaf, dumb, naked-leprous soul get healing and go away rejoicing and praising God, and you remain still so impotent, that you cannot get into the Fountain, set open for sin and for uncleanness, nor have any that can help you in, that you may be cured: yet be not disheartened, as Christ came suddenly and unexpectedly, and healed the impotent man after long waiting; so Christ will come according to His promise to your souls that seek Him. (Mal.3:1) The "The Lord whom you seek shall come, shall suddenly come, saith the Lord of Hosts."
Christ is All and in All
By Hanserd Knollys
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/hk_christisall.html
White-Wilkins Debate
How many know of the famous debate that James White had with Bob Wilkins in Oklahoma City on April 22, 2005? How many know that James White tried to defend his "born again before faith" heresy in this debate? Does James sell the video of this debate on his web site? Does he promote this debate like he does the others?
From the comments by Bob Wilkins, it seems the debate was supposed to be made available to the public through Alpha and Omega, but if it is available, I have not seen it.
Could it be due to the fact that James White miserably failed? Listen to these comments from some who attended the debate. First from Bob himself.
"The debate ran two and a half hours. During the first hour we debated the relationship between faith and regeneration. In the second hour we debated the relationship between good works and assurance. Then we had 20 minutes of questions from the audience and five minutes each for closing statements. GES Partners Mike and Letitia Lii came from San Francisco for the debate. GES Board member J.B. Bond came from Stillwater, OK and he brought over 20 people from his church with him! There were about 150 total in the audience, and about 30 of those were Free Grace people. So the crowd was heavily weighted against our position. One of the people from Stillwater commented to J.B. after the debate that when I was speaking Dr. White often frowned and shook his head, whereas when he spoke I smiled and listened intently. It was clear by his comments in the debate and afterwards and by his body language that he was very upset.
Here are a few highlights:
1. Dr. White seemed unfocused the whole debate.
2. He was extremely reluctant to admit he wasn’t sure he has everlasting life. I said he wasn’t sure, and I challenged him to tell us he was sure each time I spoke. He only admitted he wasn’t sure at the very end in his closing comments.
3. His failure to respond to my comments on Matt 7:21-23, Luke 8:5-15, John 4:14, 5:24, 11:25-27, and a host of other texts was quite telling.
4. He spent about 5 minutes at one point quoting from 2 confessions and from a number of Reformed theologians. I pointed out that this was a waste of time as this was a debate about what the Bible said on these issues. I said I believed in Sola Scriptura. That really made him angry.
5. He criticized me for being overly concerned about works-salvation. I responded by saying that the reason he wasn’t “overly concerned about works-salvation” is because his view of faith is works-salvation. This too upset him.
6. I spoke with Zane Hodges about the debate the Monday after and he said he thought the reason Dr. White was unfocused and didn’t respond to my arguments was because he probably has never been confronted like that before. It is rare for someone to tell a Calvinist that he doesn’t believe the gospel, that he isn’t sure he has eternal life, and that he is preaching a false gospel. Zane said that Dr. White was probably also upset because he likes to use these times to show how great his position is. In this debate, he couldn’t do that. In fact, the glaring weaknesses of his position were exposed, especially the lack of certainty prior to death. Hopefully the Lord will use this debate in the lives of many people. Dr. White’s ministry says it will distribute this debate on CDs and DVDs. Plus we will distribute CDs and possibly DVDs too. So lots of people who weren’t even there may be influenced. We should have more details about the audio and video soon. Thank you for your support that allows us to do cutting edge things like this."
Here are some comments from some who attended the debate.
"Bob was very clear on the grace message of salvation and that we can know we have eternal life simply by faith and not by trying to look at our lifestyle. It was very obvious that Bob held strongly to the Scriptures and James White was not as clear. It was very clear that Bob knew he has eternal life while James White was not 100% sure."
J.B. ~ Stillwater, OK
"Again and again, I kept waiting for him [Dr. White] to nail Dr. Wilkin’s hide to the wall with solid exegesis and straightforward argumentation. This did not happen as much as I felt it should. It appeared that Dr. White failed to sufficiently prepare for this debate, merely picking a couple data-points and “winging it” from there. Hardly indicative of the quality of his past work and impressive reputation."
Disappointed Dr. White Supporter ~ Oklahoma City, OK
http://www.faithalone.org/partners/05_0.pdf
To be honest, I have not seen on Bob's web pages either, how one can order this debate. Does anyone know?
From the comments by Bob Wilkins, it seems the debate was supposed to be made available to the public through Alpha and Omega, but if it is available, I have not seen it.
Could it be due to the fact that James White miserably failed? Listen to these comments from some who attended the debate. First from Bob himself.
"The debate ran two and a half hours. During the first hour we debated the relationship between faith and regeneration. In the second hour we debated the relationship between good works and assurance. Then we had 20 minutes of questions from the audience and five minutes each for closing statements. GES Partners Mike and Letitia Lii came from San Francisco for the debate. GES Board member J.B. Bond came from Stillwater, OK and he brought over 20 people from his church with him! There were about 150 total in the audience, and about 30 of those were Free Grace people. So the crowd was heavily weighted against our position. One of the people from Stillwater commented to J.B. after the debate that when I was speaking Dr. White often frowned and shook his head, whereas when he spoke I smiled and listened intently. It was clear by his comments in the debate and afterwards and by his body language that he was very upset.
Here are a few highlights:
1. Dr. White seemed unfocused the whole debate.
2. He was extremely reluctant to admit he wasn’t sure he has everlasting life. I said he wasn’t sure, and I challenged him to tell us he was sure each time I spoke. He only admitted he wasn’t sure at the very end in his closing comments.
3. His failure to respond to my comments on Matt 7:21-23, Luke 8:5-15, John 4:14, 5:24, 11:25-27, and a host of other texts was quite telling.
4. He spent about 5 minutes at one point quoting from 2 confessions and from a number of Reformed theologians. I pointed out that this was a waste of time as this was a debate about what the Bible said on these issues. I said I believed in Sola Scriptura. That really made him angry.
5. He criticized me for being overly concerned about works-salvation. I responded by saying that the reason he wasn’t “overly concerned about works-salvation” is because his view of faith is works-salvation. This too upset him.
6. I spoke with Zane Hodges about the debate the Monday after and he said he thought the reason Dr. White was unfocused and didn’t respond to my arguments was because he probably has never been confronted like that before. It is rare for someone to tell a Calvinist that he doesn’t believe the gospel, that he isn’t sure he has eternal life, and that he is preaching a false gospel. Zane said that Dr. White was probably also upset because he likes to use these times to show how great his position is. In this debate, he couldn’t do that. In fact, the glaring weaknesses of his position were exposed, especially the lack of certainty prior to death. Hopefully the Lord will use this debate in the lives of many people. Dr. White’s ministry says it will distribute this debate on CDs and DVDs. Plus we will distribute CDs and possibly DVDs too. So lots of people who weren’t even there may be influenced. We should have more details about the audio and video soon. Thank you for your support that allows us to do cutting edge things like this."
Here are some comments from some who attended the debate.
"Bob was very clear on the grace message of salvation and that we can know we have eternal life simply by faith and not by trying to look at our lifestyle. It was very obvious that Bob held strongly to the Scriptures and James White was not as clear. It was very clear that Bob knew he has eternal life while James White was not 100% sure."
J.B. ~ Stillwater, OK
"Again and again, I kept waiting for him [Dr. White] to nail Dr. Wilkin’s hide to the wall with solid exegesis and straightforward argumentation. This did not happen as much as I felt it should. It appeared that Dr. White failed to sufficiently prepare for this debate, merely picking a couple data-points and “winging it” from there. Hardly indicative of the quality of his past work and impressive reputation."
Disappointed Dr. White Supporter ~ Oklahoma City, OK
http://www.faithalone.org/partners/05_0.pdf
To be honest, I have not seen on Bob's web pages either, how one can order this debate. Does anyone know?
Gene Bridges said...
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?
"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?
Sep 7, 2008
Chpt. 79 - Hardshell Proof Texts I
In this series of chapters I will be looking at the leading "proof texts" and arguments offered by "Primitive Baptist" apologists in an attempt to uphold their Hardshell Hyperist soteriological views.
The chief error of the Hardshells is their belief in "regeneration" apart from the means of the gospel, and faith. Their error divorces faith and repentance, or conversion, from the experience of the new birth, even making these things unessential for eternal salvation. They thus share the same "ordo salutis" as those who profess to be upholding the "Reformed" view.
Many of the first Hardshells believed that all the elect, after being "regenerated," would come to faith and repentance. Some few still do today. The vast majority of modern Hardshells, or of the remnant that remains, however, believe that only few of the "regenerated" will come to believe in Christ.
In the first part of this series I will look at those passages which the Hardshells (and "Reformed") use to prove that "regeneration is prior to faith," and that faith is not integral to it.
John 1: 12, 13
"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But 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." (John 1: 10-13 KJV)
Hardshells argue just like those of the "Reformed" view, from this passage, affirming that faith follows the divine begetting.
Wrote Elder J. W. Hardwick:
"The most learned men, and the greatest theologians that the world has produced, have left their testimony that the receiving of life, or being born again, is a passive work. Notice John i. 11-13. In this text the writer says, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But 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," etc. Here we have the term "believe" in the present tense, and the term "were born" in the past tense. Hence, the believer was born again. His being born again is what enables him to believe. Therefore, the text shows that those who believe were already born again, and that they are the ones who have power to become manifest sons of God." ("Regeneration" Written by J.W. Hardwick in 1940 - emphasis mine - SMG)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1201/36/
About the sinner being wholly "passive" in regeneration I will postpone addressing, as promised, until that upcoming series "Paradigm Problems," but will now simply point out that this is the standard Hardshell view. It is also the standard "Reformed" view. Each promote the same "ordo salutis." Before I address more particularly the remarks by Elder Hardwick, let us hear from a "Reformed Calvinist."
Hendryx on John 1: 12, 13
"Question: How can you say regeneration precedes faith? Doesn’t the Bible clearly teach that regeneration is the result of faith? What about: John 1:12b “...to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--”. Doesn’t this show that they become children of God after belief?
The above passage is one that I have seen many synergists use when debating against monergistic regeneration. However, John 1:12 is referring to our justification & adoption, not regeneration. Although the various doctrines of salvation are closely related, they are not the same thing. Historical Christianity has always taught that we become Christians, adopted into God’s family, only AFTER we believe, never before. But regeneration precedes and enables the faith which, in turn, justifies. Remember that the entire sequence of God's saving work takes place instantly.
Biblical historic Christianity teaches indeed that faith precedes justification but even prior to faith comes the regenerating grace of God, not the “will of man”.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/questions/critical_mono.html
Now let us hear from another "Reformed Calvinist" on this matter.
J. L. Packer wrote:
"John declares in the prologue that only the regenerate receive Christ and enter into the privileges of God's children (John 1:12-13).
The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it. Calvin used the term "regeneration" to cover man's whole subjective renewal, including conversion and sanctification. Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration (hence the systematic mistranslation of epistrepho, "turn," as a passive, "be converted," in the AV); later Reformed theology has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the "seed" from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling."
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_regen.html
Thus, the view of those who promote the "Reformed" view, whether Reformed Baptist, as James White, or Hardshell Baptist, like Hardwick, or Presbyterian, as R. C. Sproul, and Hendryx, or as some other PedoBaptist. But, let me now look particularly at what Hardwick wrote.
Hardwick wrote:
"Here we have the term "believe" in the present tense, and the term "were born" in the past tense. Hence, the believer was born again. His being born again is what enables him to believe. Therefore, the text shows that those who believe were already born again, and that they are the ones who have power to become manifest sons of God."
Yes, it is true that "believe" is in the present tense and "were born" is in the past tense, but Hardwick and the Hardshells, like others who promote the "born again before faith" heresy, fail to observe that "received" is in the past tense! Thus, "were born" is equated with "received him"!
John put "receiving" Christ BEFORE "believing," even though he equated the two! But, why did he do this, if they mean the same thing? "Received" is past tense (aorist), but "believing" is a present tense participle. Why did John not phrase it like this:
"...but to as many as received (past tense) him...even to them which believed (past tense) on his name"? Why did he not make both verbs agree? Is this a Johannine singular occurrence? But, more on this shortly.
The Hardshells and the "Reformed" both share the same view on this passage relative to the relationship of the divine "begetting" to the sinner's "receiving" of Christ. Where they differ is in regard to how they interpret the phrase "to them gave he power to become the sons of God."
Hardwick, and many other Hardshells, add the word "manifest" to the passage, thus altering the entire meaning of the passage. So they read the passage as if it actually said - "to them gave he power to manifestly become the sons of God."
They also do this with other passages. If you ask them about Galatians 3: 26, about being "children of God by faith," they will do the same thing, adding the word "manifest," and reading it as - "we are all the children of God (manifestly) in Christ Jesus," not actually.
In the famous trial, the "Mt. Carmal Church Trial," alreadly cited from in earlier chapters, one of the witnesses for the "anti-means" party, when questioned about Acts 26: 18, kept adding the word "manifest" to the passage. By Paul's preaching the gospel the elect, and those already "regenerated," would "manifestly" receive remission of sins, and divine inheritance, and sanctification, etc.
On the other hand, Hardshells do not share the view of Hendryx and Packer in affirming that "power to become the children of God" is becoming actual children of God, as I have observed.
Hardshells, appropriately, put adoption at the time of the begetting. Where they err, however, is in affirming that both the begetting and the adopting precede reception of and faith in Christ.
Hendryx, Packer, and the "Reformed," believe that "adoption" is actual adoption, and believe that it follows faith. But, they also teach that "regeneration" must precede faith. One is first begotten or regenerated, apart from means and faith, and then he comes to faith, through means, and then by faith is adopted and justified.
The "Reformed" view has a man "regenerated" who is not a believer nor an adoptee into the family of God!
Hendryx said:
"Historical Christianity has always taught that we become Christians, adopted into God’s family, only AFTER we believe, never before. But regeneration precedes and enables the faith which, in turn, justifies. Remember that the entire sequence of God's saving work takes place instantly."
Hendryx states both a truth and an error here. He is correct when he affirms that "historical Christianity" has always taught the necessity of faith in Christ for eternal salvation. Thus, the Hardshell view is not "historic Christianity" but a hybrid and novel view. Hendryx is in error, however, when he says "but regeneration precedes and enables the faith which justifies." Notice that Hendryx does not say that the latter view was "historic Christianity," nor historic "Calvinism."
"Historic Christianity" not only teaches that adoption, salvation, justification, and sanctification, follows faith, but also regeneration or the new birth.
Hendryx said:
"Biblical historic Christianity teaches indeed that faith precedes justification but even prior to faith comes the regenerating grace of God, not the “will of man”."
Again, notice how Hendryx does not say that the placing of regeneration before faith is "historic Christianity," for he knows that such would be false. He is really admitting that the placing of faith after the new birth is not the "historic" teaching of the Christian community.
Packer wrote:
"Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated conversion with regeneration" and that "later Reformed theology has defined regeneration more narrowly..."
This admission is quite interesting. Packer is an apologist who represents the Hyperist view, the supposedly "Reformed" view of the relation of faith to regeneration, and yet, ironically, or hypocritically, certainly contradictorily, the leading "Reformers," even Calvin himself, did not hold to this view, as we shall see. This is almost universally admitted by the neo "Reformed"! How can they claim to hold the "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" view, however, when men like Calvin did not teach it?
Another ironical thing from the above citation of Packer are these words:
"The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it."
Does modern "reformed theology" uphold the Augustinian or Reformed view on "prevenient grace"? No. It denies the concept, affirming that it is what properly belongs to Arminianism, not to Calvinism. In fact, as I have pointed out in other writings, neo Calvinism, or neo "Reformed" soteriology, has simply called the Arminian giving of "prevenient grace" by a different name, calling it "regeneration," or at least as regeneration's "first stage."
The Arminian says that all who are given "prevenient grace" are given "ability to obey the gospel," but the neo "Reformed Calvinist" says that "regeneration" = ability to obey. In the one case, giving ability is a preparatory step towards regeneration, but in the other, "giving ability" IS regeneration itself.
Calvin wrote the following in commentary on the verses in John 1: 12, 13:
"On the contrary, the Evangelist repeats the same thing in a variety of words, in order to explain it more fully, and impress it more deeply on the minds of men. Though he refers directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from this passage a general doctrine may be obtained: that our being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because God begat us WILLINGLY, (James 1:18,) that is, from undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.
It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption.
Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to speak, of all his blessings. Thus so far as respects our sense, it is only after having believed — that we begin to be the sons of God. But if the inheritance of eternal life is the fruit of adoption, we see how the Evangelist ascribes the whole of our salvation to the grace of Christ alone; and, indeed, how closely soever men examine themselves, they will find nothing that is worthy of the children of God, except what Christ has bestowed on them." (Calvin, Commentary, John 1:13)
"In his comment on 1 Corinthians 13:13, Calvin says, "In fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God -- that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us.""
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/bob-ross-regeneration-calv_114261719496018943.html
Thus, what Calvin taught is what I have repeatedly taught about the relationship of faith to the new birth. He believed, like J. M. Pendleton and others, that there was no strict "ordo salutis" as regards faith and the new birth, the scriptures seemingly equating them. If there is any predominant way, it seems clear that the scriptures put faith before the new birth, or simultaneous with it, more than it puts birth before faith.
To say that one is "begotten to faith" does not imply that one can be begotten apart from faith, nor that faith is, as Calvin said, a part of our regeneration.
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5: 4 KJV)
People are begotten. They are, in their persons, the beneficients or recipients of the begetting, but all this means is that a "seed" is planted which instantly begets faith, love, joy, peace, hope, confession, repentance, etc. That is, when we are begotten, faith is begotten, or vice versa, when faith is begotten, we are begotten.
The begetting in this verse is not to be divorced from faith in Christ, or from "receiving" or "welcoming" him with the heart, soul, and mind. Just as John further clarified or identified what he meant by those who "received/welcomed" him, that is, by those who owned, recognized, and acknowledged him as God's Son and Messiah, by saying "even to those who believed on his name," so he likewise further describes them as those who have been "born of God," and not "bloods," nor of the "will of the flesh," nor of the "will of man."
Thus, John equates three expressions.
1) Receiving Christ
2) Faith in Christ
3) Being begotten of God
Thus, John is not giving a chronological order, but is simply further describing the character of those who have received Christ.
I agree with this writer, who said:
"...it seems most natural to view the “coming into being as a child of God” as Biblically equivalent to the “being born out of God.” And it seems most unnatural to think that an individual can “be born out of God” but not yet “come into being as a child of God.” And since the teaching of verse 12 indicates that receiving Jesus Christ/believing on Jesus Christ’s name is prerequisite to being given the “authoritative power” to come into being as a child of God, then such would also be prerequisite to being born out of God. Even so, I would present the following:
1. Receiving Jesus Christ = Believing on Jesus Christ’s name.
2. Receiving Jesus Christ/Believing on Jesus Christ’s name --> Coming into being as a child of God.
3. Coming into being as a child of God = Being born out of God.
4. Receiving Jesus Christ/Believing on Jesus Christ’s name --> Being born out of God.
Whereas the Reformed Calvinistic system of belief would be required to separate the idea of “being born out of God” from the idea of “coming into being as a child of God.” For that system of belief would present the following:
Being born out of God --> Receiving Jesus Christ/Believing on Jesus Christ’s name --> Coming into being as a child of God."
(Pastor Scott Markle)
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=4652
As I said earlier, there is a reason why "received" is in past tense and "believing" is in the present tense. John frequently puts believing in the present tense, for what is ongoing and active, for what is called the "life of faith." To John it is they who continue believing who are they who have received Christ in intial salvation. He could, as I said, have written both "receive" and "believe" in the same tense, but this would be out of character for John.
He puts "begetting" before "believing," but he does not put "begetting" before "receiving"! Those who are believing (living the life of faith) are they who have received Christ, and who have been begotten. Being "begotten" is not an ongoing action, and so is not put in the present active voice. John is not denying the proposition (sentence) that says - "he who has received Christ has been begotten." He does put the "begetting" before the life of faith, but he does not put the "begetting" before the initial "reception."
"...as many as received (aorist) him...were born (aorist), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12, 13)
I see no proof that says that John is establishing an ordo salutis that puts faith as something after and apart from the new birth.
In the next chapter I will look at I John 5:1 and other verses that the Hardshells use to attempt to prove regeneration and salvation apart from faith in Christ.
The chief error of the Hardshells is their belief in "regeneration" apart from the means of the gospel, and faith. Their error divorces faith and repentance, or conversion, from the experience of the new birth, even making these things unessential for eternal salvation. They thus share the same "ordo salutis" as those who profess to be upholding the "Reformed" view.
Many of the first Hardshells believed that all the elect, after being "regenerated," would come to faith and repentance. Some few still do today. The vast majority of modern Hardshells, or of the remnant that remains, however, believe that only few of the "regenerated" will come to believe in Christ.
In the first part of this series I will look at those passages which the Hardshells (and "Reformed") use to prove that "regeneration is prior to faith," and that faith is not integral to it.
John 1: 12, 13
"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But 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." (John 1: 10-13 KJV)
Hardshells argue just like those of the "Reformed" view, from this passage, affirming that faith follows the divine begetting.
Wrote Elder J. W. Hardwick:
"The most learned men, and the greatest theologians that the world has produced, have left their testimony that the receiving of life, or being born again, is a passive work. Notice John i. 11-13. In this text the writer says, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But 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," etc. Here we have the term "believe" in the present tense, and the term "were born" in the past tense. Hence, the believer was born again. His being born again is what enables him to believe. Therefore, the text shows that those who believe were already born again, and that they are the ones who have power to become manifest sons of God." ("Regeneration" Written by J.W. Hardwick in 1940 - emphasis mine - SMG)
http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/1201/36/
About the sinner being wholly "passive" in regeneration I will postpone addressing, as promised, until that upcoming series "Paradigm Problems," but will now simply point out that this is the standard Hardshell view. It is also the standard "Reformed" view. Each promote the same "ordo salutis." Before I address more particularly the remarks by Elder Hardwick, let us hear from a "Reformed Calvinist."
Hendryx on John 1: 12, 13
"Question: How can you say regeneration precedes faith? Doesn’t the Bible clearly teach that regeneration is the result of faith? What about: John 1:12b “...to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--”. Doesn’t this show that they become children of God after belief?
The above passage is one that I have seen many synergists use when debating against monergistic regeneration. However, John 1:12 is referring to our justification & adoption, not regeneration. Although the various doctrines of salvation are closely related, they are not the same thing. Historical Christianity has always taught that we become Christians, adopted into God’s family, only AFTER we believe, never before. But regeneration precedes and enables the faith which, in turn, justifies. Remember that the entire sequence of God's saving work takes place instantly.
Biblical historic Christianity teaches indeed that faith precedes justification but even prior to faith comes the regenerating grace of God, not the “will of man”.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/questions/critical_mono.html
Now let us hear from another "Reformed Calvinist" on this matter.
J. L. Packer wrote:
"John declares in the prologue that only the regenerate receive Christ and enter into the privileges of God's children (John 1:12-13).
The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it. Calvin used the term "regeneration" to cover man's whole subjective renewal, including conversion and sanctification. Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration (hence the systematic mistranslation of epistrepho, "turn," as a passive, "be converted," in the AV); later Reformed theology has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the "seed" from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling."
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_regen.html
Thus, the view of those who promote the "Reformed" view, whether Reformed Baptist, as James White, or Hardshell Baptist, like Hardwick, or Presbyterian, as R. C. Sproul, and Hendryx, or as some other PedoBaptist. But, let me now look particularly at what Hardwick wrote.
Hardwick wrote:
"Here we have the term "believe" in the present tense, and the term "were born" in the past tense. Hence, the believer was born again. His being born again is what enables him to believe. Therefore, the text shows that those who believe were already born again, and that they are the ones who have power to become manifest sons of God."
Yes, it is true that "believe" is in the present tense and "were born" is in the past tense, but Hardwick and the Hardshells, like others who promote the "born again before faith" heresy, fail to observe that "received" is in the past tense! Thus, "were born" is equated with "received him"!
John put "receiving" Christ BEFORE "believing," even though he equated the two! But, why did he do this, if they mean the same thing? "Received" is past tense (aorist), but "believing" is a present tense participle. Why did John not phrase it like this:
"...but to as many as received (past tense) him...even to them which believed (past tense) on his name"? Why did he not make both verbs agree? Is this a Johannine singular occurrence? But, more on this shortly.
The Hardshells and the "Reformed" both share the same view on this passage relative to the relationship of the divine "begetting" to the sinner's "receiving" of Christ. Where they differ is in regard to how they interpret the phrase "to them gave he power to become the sons of God."
Hardwick, and many other Hardshells, add the word "manifest" to the passage, thus altering the entire meaning of the passage. So they read the passage as if it actually said - "to them gave he power to manifestly become the sons of God."
They also do this with other passages. If you ask them about Galatians 3: 26, about being "children of God by faith," they will do the same thing, adding the word "manifest," and reading it as - "we are all the children of God (manifestly) in Christ Jesus," not actually.
In the famous trial, the "Mt. Carmal Church Trial," alreadly cited from in earlier chapters, one of the witnesses for the "anti-means" party, when questioned about Acts 26: 18, kept adding the word "manifest" to the passage. By Paul's preaching the gospel the elect, and those already "regenerated," would "manifestly" receive remission of sins, and divine inheritance, and sanctification, etc.
On the other hand, Hardshells do not share the view of Hendryx and Packer in affirming that "power to become the children of God" is becoming actual children of God, as I have observed.
Hardshells, appropriately, put adoption at the time of the begetting. Where they err, however, is in affirming that both the begetting and the adopting precede reception of and faith in Christ.
Hendryx, Packer, and the "Reformed," believe that "adoption" is actual adoption, and believe that it follows faith. But, they also teach that "regeneration" must precede faith. One is first begotten or regenerated, apart from means and faith, and then he comes to faith, through means, and then by faith is adopted and justified.
The "Reformed" view has a man "regenerated" who is not a believer nor an adoptee into the family of God!
Hendryx said:
"Historical Christianity has always taught that we become Christians, adopted into God’s family, only AFTER we believe, never before. But regeneration precedes and enables the faith which, in turn, justifies. Remember that the entire sequence of God's saving work takes place instantly."
Hendryx states both a truth and an error here. He is correct when he affirms that "historical Christianity" has always taught the necessity of faith in Christ for eternal salvation. Thus, the Hardshell view is not "historic Christianity" but a hybrid and novel view. Hendryx is in error, however, when he says "but regeneration precedes and enables the faith which justifies." Notice that Hendryx does not say that the latter view was "historic Christianity," nor historic "Calvinism."
"Historic Christianity" not only teaches that adoption, salvation, justification, and sanctification, follows faith, but also regeneration or the new birth.
Hendryx said:
"Biblical historic Christianity teaches indeed that faith precedes justification but even prior to faith comes the regenerating grace of God, not the “will of man”."
Again, notice how Hendryx does not say that the placing of regeneration before faith is "historic Christianity," for he knows that such would be false. He is really admitting that the placing of faith after the new birth is not the "historic" teaching of the Christian community.
Packer wrote:
"Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated conversion with regeneration" and that "later Reformed theology has defined regeneration more narrowly..."
This admission is quite interesting. Packer is an apologist who represents the Hyperist view, the supposedly "Reformed" view of the relation of faith to regeneration, and yet, ironically, or hypocritically, certainly contradictorily, the leading "Reformers," even Calvin himself, did not hold to this view, as we shall see. This is almost universally admitted by the neo "Reformed"! How can they claim to hold the "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" view, however, when men like Calvin did not teach it?
Another ironical thing from the above citation of Packer are these words:
"The Reformers reaffirmed the substance of Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace, and Reformed theology still maintains it."
Does modern "reformed theology" uphold the Augustinian or Reformed view on "prevenient grace"? No. It denies the concept, affirming that it is what properly belongs to Arminianism, not to Calvinism. In fact, as I have pointed out in other writings, neo Calvinism, or neo "Reformed" soteriology, has simply called the Arminian giving of "prevenient grace" by a different name, calling it "regeneration," or at least as regeneration's "first stage."
The Arminian says that all who are given "prevenient grace" are given "ability to obey the gospel," but the neo "Reformed Calvinist" says that "regeneration" = ability to obey. In the one case, giving ability is a preparatory step towards regeneration, but in the other, "giving ability" IS regeneration itself.
Calvin wrote the following in commentary on the verses in John 1: 12, 13:
"On the contrary, the Evangelist repeats the same thing in a variety of words, in order to explain it more fully, and impress it more deeply on the minds of men. Though he refers directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from this passage a general doctrine may be obtained: that our being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because God begat us WILLINGLY, (James 1:18,) that is, from undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.
It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption.
Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to speak, of all his blessings. Thus so far as respects our sense, it is only after having believed — that we begin to be the sons of God. But if the inheritance of eternal life is the fruit of adoption, we see how the Evangelist ascribes the whole of our salvation to the grace of Christ alone; and, indeed, how closely soever men examine themselves, they will find nothing that is worthy of the children of God, except what Christ has bestowed on them." (Calvin, Commentary, John 1:13)
"In his comment on 1 Corinthians 13:13, Calvin says, "In fine, it is by faith that we are born again, that we become the sons of God -- that we obtain eternal life, and that Christ dwells in us.""
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/bob-ross-regeneration-calv_114261719496018943.html
Thus, what Calvin taught is what I have repeatedly taught about the relationship of faith to the new birth. He believed, like J. M. Pendleton and others, that there was no strict "ordo salutis" as regards faith and the new birth, the scriptures seemingly equating them. If there is any predominant way, it seems clear that the scriptures put faith before the new birth, or simultaneous with it, more than it puts birth before faith.
To say that one is "begotten to faith" does not imply that one can be begotten apart from faith, nor that faith is, as Calvin said, a part of our regeneration.
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (I John 5: 4 KJV)
People are begotten. They are, in their persons, the beneficients or recipients of the begetting, but all this means is that a "seed" is planted which instantly begets faith, love, joy, peace, hope, confession, repentance, etc. That is, when we are begotten, faith is begotten, or vice versa, when faith is begotten, we are begotten.
The begetting in this verse is not to be divorced from faith in Christ, or from "receiving" or "welcoming" him with the heart, soul, and mind. Just as John further clarified or identified what he meant by those who "received/welcomed" him, that is, by those who owned, recognized, and acknowledged him as God's Son and Messiah, by saying "even to those who believed on his name," so he likewise further describes them as those who have been "born of God," and not "bloods," nor of the "will of the flesh," nor of the "will of man."
Thus, John equates three expressions.
1) Receiving Christ
2) Faith in Christ
3) Being begotten of God
Thus, John is not giving a chronological order, but is simply further describing the character of those who have received Christ.
I agree with this writer, who said:
"...it seems most natural to view the “coming into being as a child of God” as Biblically equivalent to the “being born out of God.” And it seems most unnatural to think that an individual can “be born out of God” but not yet “come into being as a child of God.” And since the teaching of verse 12 indicates that receiving Jesus Christ/believing on Jesus Christ’s name is prerequisite to being given the “authoritative power” to come into being as a child of God, then such would also be prerequisite to being born out of God. Even so, I would present the following:
1. Receiving Jesus Christ = Believing on Jesus Christ’s name.
2. Receiving Jesus Christ/Believing on Jesus Christ’s name --> Coming into being as a child of God.
3. Coming into being as a child of God = Being born out of God.
4. Receiving Jesus Christ/Believing on Jesus Christ’s name --> Being born out of God.
Whereas the Reformed Calvinistic system of belief would be required to separate the idea of “being born out of God” from the idea of “coming into being as a child of God.” For that system of belief would present the following:
Being born out of God --> Receiving Jesus Christ/Believing on Jesus Christ’s name --> Coming into being as a child of God."
(Pastor Scott Markle)
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=4652
As I said earlier, there is a reason why "received" is in past tense and "believing" is in the present tense. John frequently puts believing in the present tense, for what is ongoing and active, for what is called the "life of faith." To John it is they who continue believing who are they who have received Christ in intial salvation. He could, as I said, have written both "receive" and "believe" in the same tense, but this would be out of character for John.
He puts "begetting" before "believing," but he does not put "begetting" before "receiving"! Those who are believing (living the life of faith) are they who have received Christ, and who have been begotten. Being "begotten" is not an ongoing action, and so is not put in the present active voice. John is not denying the proposition (sentence) that says - "he who has received Christ has been begotten." He does put the "begetting" before the life of faith, but he does not put the "begetting" before the initial "reception."
"...as many as received (aorist) him...were born (aorist), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1: 12, 13)
I see no proof that says that John is establishing an ordo salutis that puts faith as something after and apart from the new birth.
In the next chapter I will look at I John 5:1 and other verses that the Hardshells use to attempt to prove regeneration and salvation apart from faith in Christ.
Sep 3, 2008
Listen to some Debates
Let me recommend some debates that one can either listen to online or else order free of charge.
Larry Hafley vs. Kent Brandenburg
Date: Mar 28-31, 2006
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, may so sin as to be lost in hell."
Affirm: Larry Ray Hafley
Deny: Kent Brandenburg
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, cannot so sin as to be lost in hell."
Affirm: Kent Brandenburg
Deny: Larry Ray Hafley
Larry Hafley vs. Thomas Ross
Date: Mar 28-Apr 1, 2005
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that water baptism, to the penitent believer, is for (in order to) the remission of sins."
Affirm: Larry Ray Hafley
Deny: Thomas Ross
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, before and without water baptism."
Affirm: Thomas Ross
Deny: Larry Ray Hafley
http://www.sermonwork.com/sermonlibrary/home.php
Bruce Reeves vs. Gene Cook
In June 2005, a religious debate was held in Conway, Arkansas between Bruce Reeves, who preaches for the Highway 65 Church of Christ in Conway, AR and Gene Cook Jr, the pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in San Diego, CA. The propositions were:
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that the alien sinner is forgiven of his past sins by faith only, before and without water baptism."
Affirm: Gene Cook, Jr.
Deny: Bruce Reeves
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that water baptism is essential in order for the alien sinner to obtain forgiveness of his past sins."
Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Gene Cook, Jr.
http://www.w65stchurchofchrist.org/DebatePage.html
Bruce Reeves vs. Steve Raines
In April 2007, a religious debate was held in Conway, Arkansas between Bruce Reeves, who preaches for the Highway 65 Church of Christ in Conway, AR and Stephen G. Raines, the pastor of East Side Baptist Church in Benton, AR. The propositions were:
Resolved: "The scriptures teach that the alien sinner is forgiven of his past sins by faith only, before and without water baptism."
Affirm: Steve Raines
Deny: Bruce Reeves
Resolved: "The scriptures teach that water baptism is essential in order for the alien sinner to obtain the forgiveness of his past sins."
Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Steve Raines
Bruce Reeves vs. Ron Mitchell
In April 2007, a religious debate was held in Conway, Arkansas between Bruce Reeves, who preaches for the Highway 65 Church of Christ in Conway, AR and Dr. Ronald V. Mitchell, professor of church history/theology at Central Baptist College, Conway, AR. The propositions were:
Resolved: "The scriptures teach that it is possible for a Christian, i.e., one who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ, to so sin as to be eternally lost."
Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Ron Mitchell
Resolved: "The scriptures teach that it is impossible for a Christian, i.e., one who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ, to so sin as to be eternally lost."
Affirm: Ron Mitchell
Deny: Bruce Reeves
http://www.hwy65churchofchrist.org/
Pat Donahue vs. Stephen Garrett
"The Bible teaches that a truly born again Christian may sin so as to be lost."
Affirm: Pat Donahue
Deny: Stephen Garrett
(Note: For the second session we reversed the proposition where I was in the affirmative and Pat was in the negative)
"The Bible teaches that election is conditional" (or something similar to that - essentially he was denying unconditional election, though in the affirmative).
Both these debates are on Pat's web site, the first being listed under "once saved always saved" and the other under "unconditional election."
I think all these debates are well worth listening to.
http://www.bibledebates.info/
Larry Hafley vs. Kent Brandenburg
Date: Mar 28-31, 2006
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, may so sin as to be lost in hell."
Affirm: Larry Ray Hafley
Deny: Kent Brandenburg
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, cannot so sin as to be lost in hell."
Affirm: Kent Brandenburg
Deny: Larry Ray Hafley
Larry Hafley vs. Thomas Ross
Date: Mar 28-Apr 1, 2005
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that water baptism, to the penitent believer, is for (in order to) the remission of sins."
Affirm: Larry Ray Hafley
Deny: Thomas Ross
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, before and without water baptism."
Affirm: Thomas Ross
Deny: Larry Ray Hafley
http://www.sermonwork.com/sermonlibrary/home.php
Bruce Reeves vs. Gene Cook
In June 2005, a religious debate was held in Conway, Arkansas between Bruce Reeves, who preaches for the Highway 65 Church of Christ in Conway, AR and Gene Cook Jr, the pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in San Diego, CA. The propositions were:
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that the alien sinner is forgiven of his past sins by faith only, before and without water baptism."
Affirm: Gene Cook, Jr.
Deny: Bruce Reeves
Resolved: "The Scriptures teach that water baptism is essential in order for the alien sinner to obtain forgiveness of his past sins."
Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Gene Cook, Jr.
http://www.w65stchurchofchrist.org/DebatePage.html
Bruce Reeves vs. Steve Raines
In April 2007, a religious debate was held in Conway, Arkansas between Bruce Reeves, who preaches for the Highway 65 Church of Christ in Conway, AR and Stephen G. Raines, the pastor of East Side Baptist Church in Benton, AR. The propositions were:
Resolved: "The scriptures teach that the alien sinner is forgiven of his past sins by faith only, before and without water baptism."
Affirm: Steve Raines
Deny: Bruce Reeves
Resolved: "The scriptures teach that water baptism is essential in order for the alien sinner to obtain the forgiveness of his past sins."
Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Steve Raines
Bruce Reeves vs. Ron Mitchell
In April 2007, a religious debate was held in Conway, Arkansas between Bruce Reeves, who preaches for the Highway 65 Church of Christ in Conway, AR and Dr. Ronald V. Mitchell, professor of church history/theology at Central Baptist College, Conway, AR. The propositions were:
Resolved: "The scriptures teach that it is possible for a Christian, i.e., one who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ, to so sin as to be eternally lost."
Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Ron Mitchell
Resolved: "The scriptures teach that it is impossible for a Christian, i.e., one who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ, to so sin as to be eternally lost."
Affirm: Ron Mitchell
Deny: Bruce Reeves
http://www.hwy65churchofchrist.org/
Pat Donahue vs. Stephen Garrett
"The Bible teaches that a truly born again Christian may sin so as to be lost."
Affirm: Pat Donahue
Deny: Stephen Garrett
(Note: For the second session we reversed the proposition where I was in the affirmative and Pat was in the negative)
"The Bible teaches that election is conditional" (or something similar to that - essentially he was denying unconditional election, though in the affirmative).
Both these debates are on Pat's web site, the first being listed under "once saved always saved" and the other under "unconditional election."
I think all these debates are well worth listening to.
http://www.bibledebates.info/
Continuous Salvation
"...who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time...Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving (present tense with ongoing action) the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls. Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care." (I Peter 1: 5, 8-10 NIV)
Salvation is what is first received when one becomes a believer in Jesus, but it is also what is received continuously, for the believer must be kept and preserved, and delivered from many perils. And, of course, full salvation is yet to come, when believers are all "glorified" (Rom. 8: 29).
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (I Corinthians 1: 18)
"He has delivered us (past tense) from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, as you help us by your prayers." (II Corinthians 1: 10, 11)
Thus, a believer is one who HAS BEEN saved, in the past, and one who is continuously BEING saved NOW, in the present, and one who also WILL BE surely saved in the future.
Salvation is what is first received when one becomes a believer in Jesus, but it is also what is received continuously, for the believer must be kept and preserved, and delivered from many perils. And, of course, full salvation is yet to come, when believers are all "glorified" (Rom. 8: 29).
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (I Corinthians 1: 18)
"He has delivered us (past tense) from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, as you help us by your prayers." (II Corinthians 1: 10, 11)
Thus, a believer is one who HAS BEEN saved, in the past, and one who is continuously BEING saved NOW, in the present, and one who also WILL BE surely saved in the future.
Which way does "eis" look?
Some argue, erroneously, that the Greek preposition "eis," variously translated in the bible, depending upon context, is a "directional" word, and one that ALWAYS points in one direction, ALWAYS forward, never backwards, or sideways. Is this the case? No, it is not the case.
Here are some rules on the use of this preposition. When it is used with regard to changing physical location, it is translated as "into," as one "goes into another room," and in this sense means "enter." However, when "location" is not under consideration, the word "eis" often means (and is so translated) "with refererence (regard) to," or "for," or "unto," or "toward," or "concerning," or "with a view to."
Thus, when we believe the gospel, we believe "eis" Christ, and "eis salvation," and "eis righteousness," and "eis forgiveness," etc. Likewise, when we repent, and are baptized, and eat the Lord's Supper, and do good works, it is all "eis," or "concerning" Christ and salvation. As these acts are often continuous, so all our spiritual activity is continuously "eis..."
Here are some rules on the use of this preposition. When it is used with regard to changing physical location, it is translated as "into," as one "goes into another room," and in this sense means "enter." However, when "location" is not under consideration, the word "eis" often means (and is so translated) "with refererence (regard) to," or "for," or "unto," or "toward," or "concerning," or "with a view to."
Thus, when we believe the gospel, we believe "eis" Christ, and "eis salvation," and "eis righteousness," and "eis forgiveness," etc. Likewise, when we repent, and are baptized, and eat the Lord's Supper, and do good works, it is all "eis," or "concerning" Christ and salvation. As these acts are often continuous, so all our spiritual activity is continuously "eis..."
Everything is UNTO
Everything the Christian does, in obedience to Christ, from the first moment of his birth into new spiritual life in Christ, until his final breath on earth, is "UNTO (eis) Christ," and "UNTO (eis) salvation," and "UNTO (eis) forgiveness (pardon)," and "UNTO (eis) sanctification," and "UNTO (eis) justification (righteousness)," and "UNTO (eis) redemption," and "UNTO (eis) adoption," etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)