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.

>A LOT OF PALABBER BY "HYBRID CALVINIST">BLOGGER . . . GENE BRIDGES
[04/17--2005]>>I read Hybrid Calvinist Gene Bridges' comments, and he
seems seriously>deficient in his concept regarding the New Hampshire
Confession.
>>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
author.

> >>>>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
it?>>

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
goal.

>>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?

>>NEW HAMPSHIRE & PHILADELPHIA CONFESSIONS>Versu the "Born
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
creation."
>>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
will.>>

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:>
>>http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/writings.htm#_ROSS_10<<>>To
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.

>>THE ROOT OF THE MATTER>>GENE BRIDGES said . . .>>
>>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
considered.<<>>

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
we have mentioned.>>NO "REGENERATION BEFORE FAITH" IN THE BAPTIST
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; . . .
.That FAITH is ordinarily BEGOT BY THE>PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL, OR WORD OF
CHRIST . . . without respect to any >POWER OR>CAPACITY in the creature,
but it is WHOLLY PASSIVE, BEING DEAD IN SINS AND>TRESPASSES, DOTH BELIEVE,
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
"CONVERTED.">>DID SPURGEON BELIEVE "BORN AGAIN BEFORE FAITH"?

>>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
NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN THIS ACT OF RECEIVING>CHRIST.>>Every man who
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. . . .
. .>>SPURGEON'S IMMACULATE SYLLOGISM

>>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.