Bob L. Ross
2/25/1935 to 12/13/2020
The following was written by the late Bob. L. Ross, author of several books, in regard to whether the 1689 London Baptist Confession taught the regeneration before faith error. (See here) He attacks Dr. James White on this issue. Ross was the nemesis of White on this issue. White never wanted to debate brother Ross on this question.
James White & the Baptist Confession
DOES JAMES WHITE BELIEVE THE
1689 LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION?
In James White's recent video, he claims to believe the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith on "Effectual Calling." Unfortunately, he does not give credible evidence that this is the case, nor does he even accurately read what the Confession actually says.
Where, for instance, does the Confession ever affirm that "regeneration must take place first," as James teaches in his writings such as "The Potter's Freedom" (page 84) and in his debate book with Dave Hunt where he defends the heresy that we must be "born again before we can exercise true, saving faith" (Debating Calvinism, page 198)?
While James misunderstands, misapplies, and misinterprets 1 John 5:1 to teach his heresy, where in the Baptist Confession does it teach that 1 John 5:1 is understood to teach that "regeneration" precedes faith? While James claims to "exegete" Scripture, he is more adept at eisegesis -- reading his own ideas into the text.
When and where did James White ever demonstrate that my charge -- that he does not affirm the teaching of the 1689 LBCF -- is false and has been refuted?
Has James repudiated what he presented in the debate with Dave Hunt -- wherein James presented the non-creedal, unscriptural "born again before faith" balderash? Has he repudiated his "exegeet'n" on John's writings wherein he claims that regeneration precedes faith, or as we like to express it, that one is "born again before he believes in Christ"?
Those phantasmagorical ideas, borrowed from the likes of Sproul, Shedd, and Berkhof, and other Pedobaptist (baby baptizer) sources, will as likely be found in the 1689 LBCF as readily as one will find the baptism of babies!
All of that sort of stuff is PEDO-REGENERATIONIST doctrine, not Baptist.
It was hatched by the Pedos and you will find it in their hatcheries. Even pedo-regenerationists Shedd and Berkhof admit that the same vanities which James presents on regeneration are not even in the Westminster Confession (aka LBCF for Baptists). The "Ordo Paludal" had not even been fully fermented to its more "developed" level in 1689, according to the Pedo theologians, Berkhof, Shedd, and Packer.
What James teaches on "regeneration" is about as CLOSE to the teaching of the 1689 London Baptist Confession as the HARDSHELL BAPTIST CHURCH where James was invited to preach this type of doctrine awhile back.
We would be delighted to meet James in an "exegesis" debate on either the Scriptures or the 1689 London Confession of Faith, or both, but the prospects for such a debate are about as prospective as a debate with any of the advocates of the "regeneration precedes faith" delusion.
James prefers much more "easy pickins," like Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Gays, etc. I understand some of these types even get paid and go on free cruises to debate with James, he is so eager to "make a name" for himself as a debater.
1689 LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION?
In James White's recent video, he claims to believe the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith on "Effectual Calling." Unfortunately, he does not give credible evidence that this is the case, nor does he even accurately read what the Confession actually says.
Where, for instance, does the Confession ever affirm that "regeneration must take place first," as James teaches in his writings such as "The Potter's Freedom" (page 84) and in his debate book with Dave Hunt where he defends the heresy that we must be "born again before we can exercise true, saving faith" (Debating Calvinism, page 198)?
While James misunderstands, misapplies, and misinterprets 1 John 5:1 to teach his heresy, where in the Baptist Confession does it teach that 1 John 5:1 is understood to teach that "regeneration" precedes faith? While James claims to "exegete" Scripture, he is more adept at eisegesis -- reading his own ideas into the text.
When and where did James White ever demonstrate that my charge -- that he does not affirm the teaching of the 1689 LBCF -- is false and has been refuted?
Has James repudiated what he presented in the debate with Dave Hunt -- wherein James presented the non-creedal, unscriptural "born again before faith" balderash? Has he repudiated his "exegeet'n" on John's writings wherein he claims that regeneration precedes faith, or as we like to express it, that one is "born again before he believes in Christ"?
Those phantasmagorical ideas, borrowed from the likes of Sproul, Shedd, and Berkhof, and other Pedobaptist (baby baptizer) sources, will as likely be found in the 1689 LBCF as readily as one will find the baptism of babies!
All of that sort of stuff is PEDO-REGENERATIONIST doctrine, not Baptist.
It was hatched by the Pedos and you will find it in their hatcheries. Even pedo-regenerationists Shedd and Berkhof admit that the same vanities which James presents on regeneration are not even in the Westminster Confession (aka LBCF for Baptists). The "Ordo Paludal" had not even been fully fermented to its more "developed" level in 1689, according to the Pedo theologians, Berkhof, Shedd, and Packer.
What James teaches on "regeneration" is about as CLOSE to the teaching of the 1689 London Baptist Confession as the HARDSHELL BAPTIST CHURCH where James was invited to preach this type of doctrine awhile back.
We would be delighted to meet James in an "exegesis" debate on either the Scriptures or the 1689 London Confession of Faith, or both, but the prospects for such a debate are about as prospective as a debate with any of the advocates of the "regeneration precedes faith" delusion.
James prefers much more "easy pickins," like Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Gays, etc. I understand some of these types even get paid and go on free cruises to debate with James, he is so eager to "make a name" for himself as a debater.
I agree that neither the scriptures nor the 1689 confession teaches the born again before faith view.
I also offered to debate with White on this issue but he refused.
I appreciate much of what Dr. White teaches, being a five point Calvinist as he, and an opponent of KJV Onlyism as he. But, I cannot accept his regeneration before faith idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment