Friday, April 21, 2006

Can He Possibly Grow More Incoherent? Part One

Charles and Bob L. Ross have read last Sunday's article. Let's see what Mr. Ross says.

[04/17--2005]>>I read Hybrid Calvinist Gene Bridges' comments, and he
seems seriously>deficient in his concept regarding the New Hampshire
>>Gene tries desperately to prove that he was "born again" before he
ever>believed the Gospel and thereby believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. And
he >trys to>decipher this peculiar doctrine from even Baptist Confessions
of Faith, >such as>the NHC.

>>He starts out by trying to prove an idea which he evidently found
"hiding>between the lines," having to do with the "freedom of the
will.">>For example, he says --> >>>It is worth noting that at
that time Arminian Baptist confessions always>contained statements about the
freedom of the will. The New Hampshire >Confession>goes out of its way to
exclude this statement, which is the first clue as >to>the intent of the

> >>>>The fact is, the New Hampshire Confession of Faith
plainly refers to the>"free agency of man" in Article 9, which in effect
comprehends the "free >will of>man.">>Also, it would be rather
unseemly for the NHC to "exclude" reference to the>freedom of the will since
the Philadelphia/London Confession has an entire>chapter on "Free Will"
(Chapter 9). Why would the NHC want to nullify the >1689>London & 1742
Philadephia Confessions on "free will"? It just doesn't add >up,>does

Furthermore, the 1925, 1963, and 2000 Southern Baptist Convention
>statements>of faith all affirm the "free agency of man," and the Southern
Seminary's>Abstract of Principles affirms "the FREE WILL and responsibility
of >intelligent>creatures.">>If the NHC went out of its way to
exclude free will, evidently James P. >Boyce>of SouthernÂ
Seminary thought free will should be "restored"!

>>It seems that Gene has himself a first class puzzle to put together
if he>intends to "prove" that these statements of faith somehow substantiate
that >a>lost sinner is "born again before faith," if that is his

>>Gene appears to hold -- as I have noted elsewhere -- a
semi-Pelagian view,>apparently affirming that the "dead" sinner must be "born
again" in order >to>have the "ability" to believe.>>This corresponds
with the Pelagian view that the lost sinner has "ability" >to>believe in
response to the command to do so.
Both these views conflict
with>Creedal Calvinism.

>>The Creedal pr Confessional Calvinist view -- as I have
demonstrated >several>times - is that the sinner is "DEAD in sins," and
faith is necessarily>produced by the power of the Spirit's using the means of
the Word of God to >produce>or create faith in the "passive" and "DEAD"
sinner, which constitutes the >New>Birth.

>>This work and gift of faith is a Divine "creation." Gene and the
Pelagians>have faith being something which is not a creation, but the
UNBELIEVING >sinner>has the "ability" to do for himself.>>We have
used the case of Ezekiel's Dry Bones in chapter 37 to illustrate >how>this
New Birth is accomplished in conjunction with the preaching of the
>Word>of God.>>Does Gene think the dead, dry bones were "alive" when
there was "a noise >and>a shaking, and the bones came together" -- BEFORE
there was "breath" in >them?

>>Does Gene have any evidence that the preliminary workings by the
Holy >Spirit>in the dead sinner is the New Birth -- BEFORE the sinner has
received the>Divinely created gift of faith by the Spirit's use of the means
of the Word >to>produce this faith in the sinner?

Again Before Faith" Heresy>>

Gene Bridges comments on the New Hampshire Confessin of Faith as
follows:>>Thomas J. Nettles [Southern Seminary Professor] writes, "Many
have>interpreted the contents of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith as an
>attempt to>modify the strong Calvinism of earlier days into something
more palatable >to the>tastes of nineteenth-century churches. It is true
that it not as detailed >or as>lengthy as the Philadelphia Confession, but
it is also true that the >substance>of its doctrine remains
unchanged."> >>>>

If Nettles is correct, then the Philadelphia Confession is where we must
go>for the substance of doctrine on Free Will and the New Birth.>>And
in the Philadelphia Confession we find that it does not teach that>sinners
are (1) "born again before faith," nor (2) are they saved by the >efforts
of>free will -- so neither does the NHC teach these ideas.>>In the PCF,
Effectual Calling is "by His Word and Spirit," not by a "direct>operation" of
the Spirit apart from the Word or Gospel, such as taught by>Hardshell
Baptists and Hybrid Calvinists such as Gene Bridges, James White, >Dr.
Tom>Schreiner, etc. (Chapter 10).>>

According to the PCF, in the Effectual Call of lost, unsaved, "DEAD"
elect>sinners, the Spirit uses the Word for "enlightening their minds
spiritually >and>SAVINGLY to UNDERSTAND the things of God . . .
effectually drawing them to>Jesus Christ, yet so they come most freely, being
made willing by His >grace">(Chapter 10, paragraph 1).>>This is
neither "born again before faith,"' nor salvation by free will. It >is>the
true "monergism" of salvation by the grace of God thru the Spirit's use>of
the Word to create faith in the dead sinner and put him into Christ as a>"new
>>Also, on SAVING FAITH, Chapter 14 of the PCF, saving faith is said
to be>"ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word," and by this means of
the >Word>"the elect are enabled to BELIEVE TO THE SAVING OF THEIR SOULS,"
and this >is>described as being "the work of the Spirit of Christ in their
hearts.">>There is not a pinch of "born again before faith" teaching in
the>Philadelphia Confession of Faith, nor of salvation by free
will.>>If the PCF teaches that the elect "believe to the saving of their
souls," >it>clearly does not teach that the elect are "born again" before
they believe.

>>Thus, if TOM NETTLES is correct, the "doctrine remains unchanged"
from the>PCF to the New Hampshire Confession, and so neither Confession
teaches that >the>elect are "born again before faith" nor by free

LANDMARKISM?>>GENE BRIDGES said . . .> >>You can take the
Arminian out of the Landmark Baptist, but you can’t >take>the Landmark
Baptist out of that particular Calvinist. He certainly argues
>like>one.>>>>I suppose Gene is either "behind the times"
considerably, or else he is >just>clowning around.>>I left
Landmarkism in 1964, and wrote a book, OLD LANDMARKISM AND THE>BAPTISTS,
refuting the Landmark theories of J. R. Graves. Note this >website:>
my knowledge, I am the only person who was once a Landmarker who wrote a>book
in refutation of it.>>Gene is not only deficient in his knowledge
regarding Confessions of Faith,>he is deficient in his knowledge about me --
if he thinks I am a >Landmarker. Is>"deficiency" a mark of those who were
"born again before faith," or what? >To>what can Gene attribute his
distorted ideas about me and Landmarkism?

>>SYNERGISM?>>Why Gene Bridges thinks he is dealing with
"synergism" -- if he has read my>writings -- is indeed a mystery.>>We
have expounded CREEDAL CALVINISTM, which is that DEAD sinners that
are>PASSIVE are born again solely by the efficient power of the Holy Spirit
in >His>use of the Gospel or Word of God to create faith in these DEAD
sinners, who>believe to the SAVING OF THEIR SOULS -- and that by no power
whatsoever >provided>by the sinner.>>How one gets "synergism" out of
that is as great a mystery as how one could>believe that a sinner could
conceivably be "born again before faith.">>"Does Mr. Ross agree with the
Second London Baptist Confession?" asks Gene>Bridges.>>

I wonder, has Mr. Bridges not read my extensive article on "The
Calvinist>Flyswatter" on "REGENERATION - CALVINISM," in which I show what the
Second >London>Confession teaches? -- the the New Birth is effected by the
Holy Spirit's >use>of the Word of God in bringing DEAD sinners to faith in
Christ?>>The Second London is the same as the Philadelphia, and Mr.
Bridges cannot>find a smattering of "born again before faith doctrine" in
that Confession.

>>I would recommend folks to remember that the BFM is an umbrella
document>whose heritage is not simply rooted in EY Mullins, Hershel Hobbs, or
Adrian>Rogers. Rather it is rooted in New Hampshire Confession. If folks want
to >discuss>"original intent" of the words, then both its history in the
SBC as the BFM>and the parent document, the NH Confession should be

BOB'S COMMENT:>>If Tom Nettles is correct, however, for the
"substance" or "root" of the >New>Hampshire Confession, we must go back to
the Philadelphia Confession.>>And the PROBLEM which Gene and all Hybrid
Calvinists have is this: NONE of>these Confessions teach that the elect are
"born again before faith.">>I have demonstrated that these Confessions are
not PELAGIAN, or>SEMI-PELAGIAN, but that the elect are viewed by these
Confessions as >"passive" and "DEAD in>trespasses" and in sins, and are
not born again until by the grace of God>they "believe to the saving of their
souls, as the Holy Spirit uses the >means of>the Word to enlighten their
minds, change their hearts, and thus give them >the>repentance and faith
by which to come to Christ to enjoy His salvation.>>There is not a grain
of "born again before faith" phantasmagoria in ANY of>the Baptist Confessions
CONFESSION>>Gene Bridges said . . .>>This confession clearly states
that when a man is effectually called, he is>regenerated, raised to newness
of life, and that enables him to embrace the>grace offered and conveyed in
the call of the gospel. Just to make this >clear, it>is stating that
regeneration precedes faith!

>>Sorry, Gene, the Confession does NOT say that "regeneration
precedes >faith.">>In fact, I will give you $500 if you find the word
"regeneration" or>"precedes" in that Article 10! In fact, I will give you
$1000 if you can >find>"regeneration precedes faith" in ANY of these
Confessions: 1644, 1689, 1742 >PCF, 1925,>1963, 2000, or the Abstract of
Principles of Southern Seminary!>>The Article plainly teaches that
Effecual Calling is "by His WORD AND >SPIRIT>. . . ENLIGHTENING their
minds SPRITUALLY AND SAVINGLY>to UNDERSTAND the things of God . . . and
effectually drawing them TO JESUS>CHRIST.">>Does that sound like "born
again before faith"? They are "enlightened>savingly" and are drawn to Jesus
Christ, but are WITHOUT FAITH? A >"regeneration">which is completed BEFORE
faith in Jesus Christ is experienced?>>In other words, A REGENERATED
UNBELIEVER! A "BORN AGAIN" UNBELIEVER . . .>like the Pedo-regenerationists,
Shedd, Berkhof, and Sproul, whose babies >are>"regenerated" before they
are even capable of understanding and believing?>>On SAVING FAITH, in
Article 14, the "work of the Spirit" in His use of the>WORD is such that "the
elect are enabled to BELIEVE TO THE SAVING OF THEIR>SOULS," and this is
"ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the WORD.">>Does that sound like
they were "born again before faith"?>>THE FIRST LONDON
CONFESSION>VERSUS GENE BRIDGES>>Gene Bridges said . . .>>The
First London Confession is also quite clear:>>Indeed it is, and it does
not teach "regeneration precedes faith," nor that>the sinner is "born again
before faith.">>I am going to use the materials you quoted on your website
to demonstrate >the>folly of this notion that one is "born again before
faith.">> >>>All mankind being thus fallen, and become altogether
DEAD IN SINS and>trespasses, . . . Faith is the gift of God wrought in the
hearts of the >elect by the>Spirit of God, whereby they come to SEE, KNOW,
and BELIEVE, . . . and>thereupon are enabled to cast the weight of their
souls upon this truth >THUS BELIEVED.>Those that have this precious FAITH
WROUGHT IN THE BY THE SPIRIT can never>finally nor totally fall away; . . .
CHRIST . . . without respect to any >POWER OR>CAPACITY in the creature,
and is CONVERTED by no less power, than that >which>raised Christ from the
dead.>>Again, it affirms that regeneration precedes faith.>
>>>>Wrong, Gene, the word "regeneration" does not even occur in the
Confession,>and neither does "precedes faith.">>The Confession teaches
that DEAD sinners are brought to BELIEVE, and are>CONVERTED. There is no one
"born again before faith" in the foregoing >statement.>There is no
"regenerated unbeliever" that statement.>

>Gene RIGHTLY SAYS, "This, Charles; this, Mr. Ross, is what the
Particular>Baptists believed. This is not the Hardshell doctrine. . .
.">>Gene is correct -- it is what they believed and it is not Hardshell
>doctrine.>It rather teaches that one is not "converted" until FAITH has
been "wrought>in the hearts of the elect by the Spirit of God," which is
"ordinarily >begotten>by the preaching of the Gospel, or Word of God," and
the "passive" and >"dead">sinner "DOTH BELIEVE and is converted by no less
power than that which >raised>Christ from the dead.">>For once Gene
was right, but he was not right in thinking that this>Confession teaches
"regeneration before faith," or that one is "born again
>before>faith.">>Again, Gene is right when he says,"There is *no*
affirmation of Hardshell>doctrine in this at all," for the Hardshells share
Gene's view that >"regeneration>precedes faith," and it creates a
FAITHLESS, LOVELESS BORN AGAIN >monstrosity,>and that it takes place by a
"direct operation" of the Spirit WITHOUT the >use>of the Word as the means
of creating faith whereby the elect sinner "DOTH>BELIEVE" and is

>>Gene Bridges said . . .>>Gene quotes from Spurgeon and tries
to enlist CHS in the ranks of those who>believe that one is "born again
before faith" -- a heresy which Spurgeon>denounced with every ounce of his
energies!>>Let me examine the quote, piece by piece, to see if there is a
grain of >that>heresy in Spurgeon's comment:>> >>Coming to
Christ is the very first effect of regeneration.<<>>BOB:>>Did
Spurgeon mean by this that "regeneration" had taken place before
>"coming>to Christ," and there was no faith created by the Word and Spirit
involved >in>the "coming"? Of course not! That is Gene's vain delusion! If
regeneration >is>"effected" by the Word and Spirit, what is the "effect"
but "coming to>Christ"? Regeneration never has the "effect" of a "born again
before faith">montrosity!>>Spurgeon: >>No sooner is the soul
quickened<<>>BOB:>>Did Spurgeon here say, "No sooner is the
soul regenerated or born again"?>Of course not! That is Gene's delusion! The
Word quickens in many ways >BEFORE>faith is experienced. Did you ever hear
of "conviction" by the quickening>Word, Gene?

>>Spurgeon: >>No sooner is the soul quickened than it at once
discovers its>lost estate, is horrified thereat, looks out for a
refuge,<<>>BOB:>>Did Spurgeon say this was "regeneration" or
that the sinner had already >been>"born again"? Of course not! That is
Gene's delusion! Spurgeon is simply>referring to the preliminary quickening
work bu the Spirit's using His >Sword, the>Word, in the lost, dead
sinner's heart and soul -- similar to the movement>among Ezekiel's dry bones
BEFORE they came to life, and like Saul of >Tarsus'>"kicking against the
prices" of the Word of God.>>Spurgeon: >>and believing Christ to be
a suitable one, flies to him and>reposes in
him.<<>>BOB:>>Did Spurgeon believe that the sinner is NOW born
again! OF COURSE! For he >has>been given faith by the Holy Spirit's using
the Word of God to bring him to>BELIEVING IN CHRIST!>>You see, Gene,
Spurgeon did not have a "BORN AGAIN UNBELIEVER"!>>Spurgeon: >>Where
there is not this coming to Christ, it is certain that>there is AS YET NO
QUICKENING; where there is no quickening, the soul is >dead in>trespasse
and sins, and being dead it cannot enter into the kingdom of
>heaven.<<>>>BOB:>>Therefore, Gene, Spurgeon's "born
again" sinner is the one who has>experienced the "COMING TO CHRIST," for with
Spurgeon, if the sinner has >not YET come to>Christ, he has NOT YET born
again.>>With Spurgeon, when the sinner came to Christ by the Spirit's use
of the >Word>in creating faith, THEN he was born again at the point of
that God-given>faith, NOT BEFORE.>>Spurgeon did not have a sinner "born
again before faith.">>In the following excerpt from Spurgeon, you will not
find one "born again>before faith." You will find that the Spirit's work of
regeneration is>simultaneous with the act of man in believing. Hence, the
creation of faith >is>regeneration, for faith would not exist without the
Lord's producing it by >His Word and>Spirit as the "means."

>>Open Heart for A Great Saviour, C. H. SPURGEON, #669 Metropolitan
>Tabernacle>Pulpit, Volume 12, 1866:>> >>>It is perfectly
true that the work of salvation lies first and mainly in>Jesus receiving
sinners to Himself to pardon, to cleanse, to sanctify, to>preserve, to make
perfect.>>But, at the same time the sinner also receives Christ. There is
an act on >the>sinner’s part by which, being constrained by Divine
Grace, he opens his >heart>to the admission of Jesus Christ and Jesus
enters in and dwells in the >heart,>and reigns and rules there. To a
gracious readiness of heart to entertain >the>Friend who knocks at the
door, we are brought by God the Holy Spirit, and>then He sups with us and we
with Him. . . .>>The act of TRUSTING Jesus Christ is the act which brings
a soul into a >state>of Grace and is the mark and evidence of our being
bought with the blood of>the Lord Jesus. Do you trust Him, dear Hearers?
Then, if so, you receive >Him.>....>>THE GREAT WORK, WHICH IS
trusts the Lord Jesus has been born again. The question was>once argued in an
assembly of Divines as to whether a person first had >faith
or>regeneration, and it was suggested that it was a question which must
>forever be>unanswerable. The process, if such it is, must be
simultaneous—no sooner >does>the Divine life come into the soul than it
believes on Christ. You might as>well ask whether in the human body there is
first the circulation of the >blood>or the heaving of the lungs—both are
essential ingredients in life, and >must>come at the same time.>>If
I believe in Jesus Christ I need not ask any question as to whether I
am>regenerated, for no unregenerate person ever could believe in the Lord
>Jesus>Christ! And if regenerated I must BELIEVE in Jesus, for he who does
not do >so is>clearly dead in sin.>>See, then, the FOLLY of persons
talking about being regenerated who have no>faith! It cannot be! It is
IMPOSSIBLE! We can have no knowledge of such a >thing>as regeneration
which is not accompanied with some degree of mental motion>and
consciousness.>>Regeneration is not a thing which takes place upon
matter—it is a thing >of>spirit. The birth of the spirit must be the
subject of consciousness, and >though>a man may not be able to say that at
such and such a moment he was>regenerated, yet the act of faith is a
consciousness of regeneration.>>The moment I believe in Jesus Christ my
faith is an index to me of a work>that has gone on within. And the secret
work within, and the open act of >faith>which God has joined together let
no man put asunder.>>Those who believe not are unregenerate, though they
may have been sprinkled>by the best priest who ever had Episcopal hands laid
on his head!>>If a man believes NOT he is unregenerate, whether baptized
or not. But if >he>believes, he is regenerate, though he may never have
been baptized at all.>Baptism may outwardly express regeneration after it has
been received, and >then>the symbol becomes valuable—but WITHOUT FAITH
THERE CAN BE NO >REGENERATION,>even though Baptism is administered a
thousand times!. . . . .

>>Now faith is the “tell-tale” of the human soul! Where there is
faith >there>is new life. Where there is NO FAITH there is no life. . . .

>>We have seen Dr. B. H. Carroll's Impeccable Syllogism in another
email a >few>days ago.>>

Now, here is C. H. Spurgeon's Immaculate Syllogism, which is based on 1
>John>5:4. This is on page 142 of Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume
17, >1971,>Sermon #979, "Faith and Regeneration."

>>1. "Whatsoever is BORN OF GOD overcometh the world.">>2. But
FAITH overcomes the world.>>3. Therefore, the man who has FAITH is
REGENERATE.>>There is no way, Gene, to squeeze a "born again before faith"
situation >into>that syllogism!>>FAITH is that which is BORN OF GOD,
therefore the REGENERATED man is the >man>who has FAITH -- and NO
OTHER!>>That rules out the faithless infants of "regenerated"
pedobaptists, and it>rules out the imaginary "pre-faith regenerates" of James
White's "White>Lightnin' Distillery Co. Inc. Phoenix, Arizona.">>C. H.
SPURGEON:>>No faith, no life>"Where there is faith, there is new life;
where there is no faith there is >no>life." (Open Heart for the Great
Saviour, #669, page 22).>>**********>>On the Dry Bones and Dead
Sinners>>To tell dry bones to live, is a very unreasonable sort of thing
when tried >by>rules of logic; and for me to tell you, a dead sinner, to
believe in >Christ,>may seem perfectly unjustifiable by the same rule. But
I do not need to>justify it. If I find it in God’s Word, that is quite
enough for me; and >if the>preacher does not feel any difficulty in the
matter, why should you? . . . >Leave>the difficulties; there will be time
enough to settle them when we get to>heaven; meanwhile, if life comes through
Jesus Christ, let us have it, and >have>done with nursing our doubts"
(#2246, page 119).>>

**********>>Faith and Quickening>"It is depending upon the Lord
Jesus Christ alone which is the true vital >act>by which the soul is
quickened into spiritual life." (Eyes Opened, #681, >page>163). [Of
course, Spurgeon believed this was the creative work of the Holy>Spirit using
the Word to create this act of faith].

>>**********>>Faith's has Transforming Power>"If thou
believest in Jesus Christ and him crucified, in the moment that
>thou>believest, this great change of nature is effected in thee; for
faith has >in>itself a singularly transforming power" (Despised Light
Withdrawn, #2413, >page>235). [Of course, Spurgeon believed this faith was
created by the Holy>Spirit's using the Word].>>**********>>Holy
Spirit Uses the TRUTH for Quickening>"Threre is nothing in all our eloquence
unless we believe in the Holy >Spirit>making use of the TRUTH which we
preach for the quickening of the souls of>men. . . . The Spirit of God, that
is, the breath of God, goes with the >Word of>God, and with that alone"
(Come from the Four Winds, O Breath! #2246, page>117).

Yep, you read that correctly...I'm a Semi-Pelagian. Since it appears I will need to repeat myself frequently, I will post my response in Part 2. Unlike Mr. Ross, who does not bother to inform his readers what was said in full by his opponents, I wanted to inform you all exactly what he wrote. I apologize to you, as this came to me via an email from a friend at Reformed Baptist Seminary.


  1. Gene,

    My brother, you wrote an excellent response to Mr. Ross. But you need to know that he is one of the most unteachable men I have ever tried to converse with. No matter how many times or how ever many different ways you attempt to get him to understand your point of view he will stubbornly refuse and continue to only spout his "party line". He is not fair with what people say, he is not charitable in how he says it. He says Joel Osteen is now his favorite preacher....he should do more of what his preacher says. Joel says we are supposed to only say good and encouraging things to others. That the best way to bring out the best in others is to build them up and not tear them down. However, Bob seems to think that making fun of people and calling them names is the biblical way to handle those you disagree with. Well, if Mr. Ross won't obey his new "favorite" preacher, maybe he could try to obey the Bible which says: Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
    Mr. Ross has been corrected numerous times, but he seems incapable of "hearing" what anybody else has to say. For the edification of others go ahead and respond, but don't entertain any hope of getting Bob to acknowledge his errors or even that anything you say is true or has merit. He is utterly incapable of seeing things from anybody elses point of view but his own. It is truly sad that someone who has done such good for the body of Christ in giving us Spurgeon again, could also do so much harm in who he chooses to attack. There are many heretics out there, but he chooses to spend most of his time on his calvinist brothers. Thanks for your masterful first post Gene!
    grace and peace,


  2. I don't know how Ross is perceived by the evangelical community at large, but I can tell you that I am not aware of anyone in the evangelical academy who takes him seriously.

    In the past, he has cc'd unsolicited copies of his email "debates" to a very select (and apparently randomly generated) list of diverse evangelical scholars - men who are well known and who have published significant works of theology (I don't know how my email found its way onto his list. I pleaded with him that I wasn't worthy enough to be included with such august company and so I begged him to take me off his list - a request that was finally honored after about the third or fourth spammed email I received).

    I can tell you that he does not come across well in these unsolicited emails.

    I won't be surprised if at least one of his spamming victims (who happens to be a frequent commentator on the current state of evangelicalism) comments on Ross' invective as an egregious example of a wider malaise that plagues the evangelical “wasteland” in one of his future books (in fact, I might even suggest it to him ;).

  3. Gene,

    I thank God how He has gifted you to communicate. You teach very well on a blog and I'm sure you are better in person. Praise be to God for His gift to the Elect.
    Bob Ross is not taken serious at all by many people who have dealt with him.Even the Primitive Baptists can't even have a decent conversation with him. I disagree with the Primitive Baptists in areas but some of their guys say that Bob Ross acts like a child when trying to communicate back n forth. I doubt if he really embraces Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Particular Atonement according to the 1644,1689 as he claims to. Any man that claims to be a " Confessional Calvinist" but says Joel Osteen is their favorite preacher, well around here in Georgia we say that " Man is a few fries short of a Happy Meal"! Keep up the good writing. I always look forward to your posts.