Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/12/time-salvation-its-modest-defense.html
Kevin Fralick Stated:
"I have noticed in my perusals of some of the so-called defenses of time salvation the consistent failure of its proponents to give a definition which captures the essence of its teaching. In most every attempt that I have ever read, the author always gives it a very modest definition. Instead of defining what it truly is and what it teaches in its extreme form, our modernists often skirt the issue by stating that it has to do with the "blessings in this life" or that God often rescues His people from temporary dangers, all the while neglecting to address the real issues which are at stake. Some of those issues include:
What is the purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
What is the correct interpretation, using sound hermeneutics, of those Biblical passages which connect the reception of the gospel with salvation (e.g. Romans 1:16; Romans 10; James 1:18)?
Is faith in Christ necessary for salvation?
Do the scriptures teach that conversion and sanctification are definite elements of eternal salvation?
It is not at all obvious to the reader that these are the real issues under consideration based on the superficial definitions of time salvation often presented. Notice in the citations we inscribe below the omission of weightier theological subjects such as regeneration, faith, conversion, justification, sanctification, or perseverance, which is actually what the doctrine actually compromises."
It is quite evident that Fralick believes that Conditional, Time Salvation (CTS henceforth), taken to it's logical conclusion, leads to universalism, as he accuses the doctrine of compromising the ordo salutis.
I point out, first, that universalism would only compromise much of the prescriptive nature of Fralick's conception of the ordo salutis. Universalism would not compromise all forms of these doctrines, only Fralick's conception of them would be sacrificed. In this, we observe that Fralick equates the compromise of these doctrines with the compromise of his conception of these doctrines, and he does not provide vindication of his views of these subjects. Why make an empty accusation where he is unwilling to be more precise? If he is preaching to the choir of Stephen Garrett, Bob Ross, and others of like mind, I'm sure such an accusation would be heartily endorsed. Notice the sweeping nature of the claim he makes that is beyond the scope of his present article, but in a polemical context, he simply begs the question.
Next, Brother Fralick argues as his thesis for this post that defenses of CTS from Primitive Baptists seem to omit what he takes to be the central heresy of CTS - universalism or a quasi-universalism. He argues that CTS is not a distinctive doctrine where it does not lead to these excesses. However, simply because CTS is used by some modern Primitive Baptists to justify universalism or a quasi-universalism does not demonstrate that it logically follows from CTS.
This is even inadvertently suggested by Fralick in this post, as he cannot easily find defenses of CTS that show what he takes to be the error of CTS. Fralick has not proved that the doctrinal flaw of CTS in many modern PB's actually follows from an emphasis of CTS, but presumes that it does. More than this, he even admits in contradiction to this presumption that no one denies that gospel obedience leads to temporal blessings, and all of Christendom is not guilty of a quasi-universalism. So it plainly follows from this that an understanding of temporal deliverances does not lead to the error he perceives in modern PB's. He effectively proves that CTS is not responsible for the errors of modern PB's that he perceives.
As for his claim that CTS is superfluous as an emphasis, this doctrine really came to the fore in Primitive Baptists in opposition to Absolute Predestination advocates who emphasized the unconditional nature of God's decrees over against man's responsibility for sin. The emphasis was really first about sin's relationship in the decrees of God. It is not a superfluous doctrine to place the emphasis of disobedience in man on man rather than the decree of God, as no man knows what God has decreed, and the Biblical emphasis per James 1:13, 14 is on man's responsibility, not God's decree. The converse, of course, logically follows as well. In obedience, man is equally responsible to make his calling and election sure. The calling and election are of God, but man does not know that he is called and elected unless he is obedient. There is a salvation from doubt if man perseveres, and men trust when they persevere that they are preserved in Christ.
CTS is not superfluous. It has epistemic significance. It certainly is not the case that all regenerate, children of God have the same measure of assurance in the faith. There is a confidence of faith that children of God must press toward, and this confidence is conditional on gospel obedience. The lack of obedience certainly could mean they are unregenerate, but it also may mean they are disobedient, as children of God are not always as obedient as they should be.
Admitting that children of God are often disobedient does not logically force the belief that children of God are always disobedient, or that the degree of disobedience is typically so great that they are indistinguishable from the unregenerate. This is hollow log error that all Primitive Baptists would deny, though in practice of doctrine, some modern Primitive Baptists fall back into this error.
Primitive Baptists who make an absolute distinction between sonship and discipleship are courting this error. Though there is truth in the distinction, some arbitrarily make the category of sons most of the people of the world. There is nothing about CTS that lends itself to a high population of Christ-rejecting sons, disproportionate to the population of disciples. There is nothing about this doctrine that makes only Primitive Baptists some measure of a disciple. There is nothing about this doctrine that should give comfort to those in disobedience because the logical possibility always exists that disobedience is an effect of an unregenerate state.
CTS does not depend, or it is not an effect of the objectionable, unquestioned commitment of some Primitive Baptists to view most of the world as comprised of regenerate sons. Now, it is abused by those with such commitments, but as Fralick himself notes, J.W. Jones' view of CTS in 1924 has none of these excessive views.
Now, the degree to which I will admit that some modern PB's emphasize CTS "unnecessarily" is where they are emphasizing CTS to justify their universalism or quasi-universalism, but it is more than simply "unnecessary" when it is used thusly, it is erroneous to apply it in this manner because it controverts the NT in which the calling of God is manifested by discipleship in 1 Cor. 1:24. But this is not a problem of CTS inherently.
Just as some measure of discipleship is the natural consequence of sonship when sons are under the sound of the gospel, CTS has a close connection with eternal salvation. This follows logically from the NT in that calling and election cannot be sure per Phil. 2:13 outside of gospel obedience. It is obvious to all that CTS presumes eternal salvation, but it is plain from the testimony of the NT that in this gospel era eternal salvation presumes some measure of CTS. True relationship presumes fellowship per 1 John 3:9,10.
If children of God are truly conformed to the image of Christ in time, how is it all consistent to believe they can completely reject the revelation of Him to whom they are made conformable? This doesn't make good nonsense, to quote Sonny Pyles.
Most of Fralick's objections to CTS seem to be against those who abuse it to justify preconceptions of universalism, but he doesn't appear to lay blame where it belongs. It is the universalism at fault, not the concept of CTS, as noted above, he has difficulty himself finding a defense of CTS to which he objects. Fralick has elsewhere claimed that one of the reasons he left the Primitive Baptists was because of the lack of any systematic presentation of CTS.
Fralick wondered whether CTS was one salvation or separate salvations of confession, baptism, etc. I'm not sure of the logical difficulty here. "Timely" salvation is a general term that refers to all the deliverances experienced in time by gospel obedience. It is certainly reasonable to ascribe a deliverance from doubt in making sure of one's calling and election. There is a deliverance in time from doubt when one is baptized, as it is the answer of a good conscience. There is a deliverance from doubt in confession, as Paul says that he that confesses that Jesus is Lord shall be saved. What is the deliverance? The deliverance should be from the guilt of sin and fear of the righteous judgment of God.
Now, some modern Primitive Baptists flesh out fear of God's judgment only in a temporal sense, and surely God can punish that way, but it is a mistake and unnecessary to limit the epistemic deliverance in this manner. Children of God that are first aware of sin have a pervading sense of guilt. Guilt of sin is alleviated in Christ; the child of God should feel, when they are first aware of their sin, justly deserving of the eternal damnation of God. So, there is a deliverance from the fear of God's just eternal wrath through belief in Jesus. Their security in Christ, in reality, is no less secure for what they feel or know, if they are truly of the elect, but there is no epistemic access to this security but by faith in Jesus.
CTS ought to be emphasized as a goad to apathetic, fence-straddling individuals. It ought to be balanced and compelled by the logical possibility that those who fail to submit to Christ's path may never have tasted that the Lord is gracious. Not everyone that says to Christ, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21). This Kingdom of Heaven is not simply the spiritual kingdom Christ instituted on earth, as Matt. 7:22 extends to the final eternal heaven in the reference to "that day".
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Garrett's Misrepresentation of Jonathan Edwards
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/12/chpt-110-mediate-or-immediate.html
In both the linked post above and on the "Baptist Gadfly", Garrett has argued that Edwards viewed regeneration and conversion as synonymous terms.
Certainly the quotations of Edwards that Garrett offers show that Edwards linked the two inseparably, and used them as approximately synonymous. However, Garrett has misrepresented Edwards to argue that he made no distinction between them. Garrett even quotes a crucial passage from Edwards and neglects to give the entire quote, which shows not only that Edwards did not view the terms as completely synonymous but that Edwards viewed the mind as passive in regeneration. There is no doubt from the passivity of the mind in regeneration that Edwards logically (like James White, for example) placed regeneration preceding faith.
Garrett quotes Edwards:
"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that byregeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.'"
However, Garrett omits the next two sentences that show that Edwards distinguished regeneration from conversion:
"I put repentance and conversion together, as the Scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19, and because they plainly signify much the same thing. The word metanoia (repentance) signifies a change of the mind; as the word conversion means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration (excepting that this latter term especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it), the following things do show…."
Not only are they distinct in magnitude, as regeneration is represented by Edwards here as especially indicative of change, but they are distinct in that while conversion involves the intellect, regeneration does not - man is wholly passive in it! How could Garrett miss that? This misrepresentation should make a person wonder how many of Garrett's quotes and historical representations have been pulled out of context on the pretext of support for his views.
Garrett would do well to research Edwards through the works of such scholars as John H. Gerstner. I recommend Gerstner's article here: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/regeneration/regeneration-from-jonathan-edwards-a-mini-theology-by-john-h-gerstner/
Gerstner was a very highly regarded Edwardsean scholastic authority, and his published works testify against Garrett's claim that Edwards made no distinction between regeneration and conversion or that regeneration does not logically precede faith and repentance.
In both the linked post above and on the "Baptist Gadfly", Garrett has argued that Edwards viewed regeneration and conversion as synonymous terms.
Certainly the quotations of Edwards that Garrett offers show that Edwards linked the two inseparably, and used them as approximately synonymous. However, Garrett has misrepresented Edwards to argue that he made no distinction between them. Garrett even quotes a crucial passage from Edwards and neglects to give the entire quote, which shows not only that Edwards did not view the terms as completely synonymous but that Edwards viewed the mind as passive in regeneration. There is no doubt from the passivity of the mind in regeneration that Edwards logically (like James White, for example) placed regeneration preceding faith.
Garrett quotes Edwards:
"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that byregeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.'"
However, Garrett omits the next two sentences that show that Edwards distinguished regeneration from conversion:
"I put repentance and conversion together, as the Scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19, and because they plainly signify much the same thing. The word metanoia (repentance) signifies a change of the mind; as the word conversion means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration (excepting that this latter term especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it), the following things do show…."
Not only are they distinct in magnitude, as regeneration is represented by Edwards here as especially indicative of change, but they are distinct in that while conversion involves the intellect, regeneration does not - man is wholly passive in it! How could Garrett miss that? This misrepresentation should make a person wonder how many of Garrett's quotes and historical representations have been pulled out of context on the pretext of support for his views.
Garrett would do well to research Edwards through the works of such scholars as John H. Gerstner. I recommend Gerstner's article here: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/regeneration/regeneration-from-jonathan-edwards-a-mini-theology-by-john-h-gerstner/
Gerstner was a very highly regarded Edwardsean scholastic authority, and his published works testify against Garrett's claim that Edwards made no distinction between regeneration and conversion or that regeneration does not logically precede faith and repentance.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Garrett and Fuller
Garrett's original post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/12/chpt-110-mediate-or-immediate.html
Stephen Garrett's latest post is, evidently, chapter 110 of his ongoing work against Primitive Baptists. I applaud some of the recent chapters of his work in that the presentation of the recent chapters have been, for the most part, far more logical and rational than some of the emotion-laden previous chapters. I would encourage him to continue in this style, and to re-write some of the previous chapters, as no matter what a person may believe, sensing an author's intense, personal feelings about a subject is a distraction to what should be a logical analysis that attempts to establish a rational basis for a thesis.
Too much of his writing bears the tone of abhorrence toward the Primitive Baptists that supplants what his rational objective is: to show the fallacy of Primitive Baptist doctrine. His name-calling, derogatory epithets, disparaging rhetoric, and sweeping generalizations will alienate readers from an honest appraisal of his arguments, even if they are not Primitive Baptists. His emotion alone alienates the logically-minded in a context in which reason and logic ought to be foremost.
Garrett stated:
""New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion." The idea that there was a clear distinction, and separation, between "regeneration" and "conversion," in scripture, was part of the "New Divinity" among Calvinists, and was not the teaching of the old divinity.It is a misrepresentation of the view of Edwards to say that he taught that regeneration preceded faith and conversion and that it was accomplished strictly in an immediate fashion, apart from the instrumentality of the gospel truth."
Garrett (and Bob Ross) has been promoting the idea that later Calvinists, for, apparently, paedo-Baptist ulterior motives, began to distinguish regeneration and conversion from the creedal, Calvinistic view of the synonymy of these terms. There does seem to have been an evolution from seeing them as approximately synonymous in earlier theologians to the terms being sharply distinguished in later theologians. However, to claim that this was done to support paedo-Baptist views seems highly speculative, and injurious to the integrity of a great many Calvinist theologians. It seems far more plausible to suggest that a sharper contrast between these terms came about as a result of a more consistent opposition to Arminian doctrine.
Obviously, if an ordo salutis that places faith simultaneous to regeneration is embraced, it lends prima facie credibility to the Arminian doctrine of resistible grace. Garrett's view of soteriology seems to be that grace is both resistible and irresistible. It is irresistible to the elect, but resistible to the non-elect. Titus 2:11, according to Garrett, indicates that God's grace that brings salvation actually does come to every single man that has ever lived. This also means that salvation is actually offered to the non-elect, if they would simply accept it and repent. Christ's atonement was, therefore, limited and universal - unlimited in scope, but limited in application. Basically he advocates Fullerism.
Notice how Garrett begins his post linked above:
"Regeneration is both Mediate and Immediate, just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional. To argue that regeneration cannot be both mediate and immediate is invalid, for regeneration is in fact both."
Garrett lets slip his Fuller commitments in, "...just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional."
What exactly is the immediate aspect of Garrett's view of regeneration? Garrett's view is that God's spirit regenerates men through the gospel. Immediate regeneration, by definition, is a regeneration that is executed by God's Spirit alone without mediation of any thing natural. If Garrett admits that this occurs, the presence of the gospel is an unmediated presence; if Garrett admits that God's regenerating Spirit is mediated through the Word, God regenerates by use of a medium. How can it logically be both at the same time and in the same relationship?
Garrett must be advocating what appears to be nonsense because he defines 'mediate' and 'immediate' in the generally understood usage of these terms. How can the act of regeneration be both? It is either through some means or it is not.
As for Garrett's comparison of regeneration to general salvation, which is supposedly conditional and unconditional, it shares the same contradiction - it either is ultimately conditional or it is not. Garrett seems to understand the distinction between first and secondary causes as the same as between the conditional and unconditional. This is a stretch, to say the least. This distinction in the London Confession is made in terms of God's unconditional decrees, as it explicitly states that God decreed nothing by foreknowledge. God employs secondary causation to achieve His ends as well as directly causing events, but it is all in an unconditional context of the counsel of His own will. It is a poor choice of words to say that eternal salvation is "conditional" in any sense, as the LCF's view of secondary causation certainly did not extend to the realm of contingency in salvation. He cannot defend Fuller in that document.
Stephen Garrett's latest post is, evidently, chapter 110 of his ongoing work against Primitive Baptists. I applaud some of the recent chapters of his work in that the presentation of the recent chapters have been, for the most part, far more logical and rational than some of the emotion-laden previous chapters. I would encourage him to continue in this style, and to re-write some of the previous chapters, as no matter what a person may believe, sensing an author's intense, personal feelings about a subject is a distraction to what should be a logical analysis that attempts to establish a rational basis for a thesis.
Too much of his writing bears the tone of abhorrence toward the Primitive Baptists that supplants what his rational objective is: to show the fallacy of Primitive Baptist doctrine. His name-calling, derogatory epithets, disparaging rhetoric, and sweeping generalizations will alienate readers from an honest appraisal of his arguments, even if they are not Primitive Baptists. His emotion alone alienates the logically-minded in a context in which reason and logic ought to be foremost.
Garrett stated:
""New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion." The idea that there was a clear distinction, and separation, between "regeneration" and "conversion," in scripture, was part of the "New Divinity" among Calvinists, and was not the teaching of the old divinity.It is a misrepresentation of the view of Edwards to say that he taught that regeneration preceded faith and conversion and that it was accomplished strictly in an immediate fashion, apart from the instrumentality of the gospel truth."
Garrett (and Bob Ross) has been promoting the idea that later Calvinists, for, apparently, paedo-Baptist ulterior motives, began to distinguish regeneration and conversion from the creedal, Calvinistic view of the synonymy of these terms. There does seem to have been an evolution from seeing them as approximately synonymous in earlier theologians to the terms being sharply distinguished in later theologians. However, to claim that this was done to support paedo-Baptist views seems highly speculative, and injurious to the integrity of a great many Calvinist theologians. It seems far more plausible to suggest that a sharper contrast between these terms came about as a result of a more consistent opposition to Arminian doctrine.
Obviously, if an ordo salutis that places faith simultaneous to regeneration is embraced, it lends prima facie credibility to the Arminian doctrine of resistible grace. Garrett's view of soteriology seems to be that grace is both resistible and irresistible. It is irresistible to the elect, but resistible to the non-elect. Titus 2:11, according to Garrett, indicates that God's grace that brings salvation actually does come to every single man that has ever lived. This also means that salvation is actually offered to the non-elect, if they would simply accept it and repent. Christ's atonement was, therefore, limited and universal - unlimited in scope, but limited in application. Basically he advocates Fullerism.
Notice how Garrett begins his post linked above:
"Regeneration is both Mediate and Immediate, just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional. To argue that regeneration cannot be both mediate and immediate is invalid, for regeneration is in fact both."
Garrett lets slip his Fuller commitments in, "...just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional."
What exactly is the immediate aspect of Garrett's view of regeneration? Garrett's view is that God's spirit regenerates men through the gospel. Immediate regeneration, by definition, is a regeneration that is executed by God's Spirit alone without mediation of any thing natural. If Garrett admits that this occurs, the presence of the gospel is an unmediated presence; if Garrett admits that God's regenerating Spirit is mediated through the Word, God regenerates by use of a medium. How can it logically be both at the same time and in the same relationship?
Garrett must be advocating what appears to be nonsense because he defines 'mediate' and 'immediate' in the generally understood usage of these terms. How can the act of regeneration be both? It is either through some means or it is not.
As for Garrett's comparison of regeneration to general salvation, which is supposedly conditional and unconditional, it shares the same contradiction - it either is ultimately conditional or it is not. Garrett seems to understand the distinction between first and secondary causes as the same as between the conditional and unconditional. This is a stretch, to say the least. This distinction in the London Confession is made in terms of God's unconditional decrees, as it explicitly states that God decreed nothing by foreknowledge. God employs secondary causation to achieve His ends as well as directly causing events, but it is all in an unconditional context of the counsel of His own will. It is a poor choice of words to say that eternal salvation is "conditional" in any sense, as the LCF's view of secondary causation certainly did not extend to the realm of contingency in salvation. He cannot defend Fuller in that document.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Garrett's Comments 11-10-11 Pt. 1
Brother Garrett's original post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/jasons-improvement.html
Brother Garrett claims that views of soteriology that I have espoused are not the majority report among Primitive Baptists. I have mentioned previously that David Pyles, a prominent Elder among the Old Baptists, has testified to me that this is not the case. Perhaps Brother Garrett's father, who is also an Elder among the PB's, represents more of a minority than Brother Garrett realizes.
Sometimes an abrasive approach incites controversy where the issues broached are not the real or only cause of division. Did Brother Garrett, while among the Primitive Baptists, approach these issues with humility and patience? Or was he as much as a firebrand then as he appears to be on his blog now? As a young Elder among the PB's in the early 80's, did Elder Stephen Garrett intreat the older Elders with the same respect he would his father, as the Scripture commands? I wonder how much of his difficulties were personality rather than doctrine. I appreciate and admire Brother Garrett's intellect and knowledge and I read his blog with interest even where we disagree. I am not arguing ad hominem against Brother Garrett's views here - I'm simply suggesting that Brother Garrett could have been more fruitful with patience. It takes wine time to ferment.
I must admit that I am somewhat critical of Sarrels. Brother Garrett quoted at length from Sarrels' systematic work. It is speculative to suppose that there are multitudes of regenerate, mentally competent adults among pagan nations, as even if the elect are out of every nation, kindred, and tongue that have ever existed, one regenerate person would satisfy that requirement, though the expression itself seems to be in the spirit of a grand scale. The grandiose nature of the expression is identified with the presence of all different nations, not that the number among the distinct nations would be large.
The unscriptural idea he supposes that regenerate individuals under the sound of the gospel would remain with only embryonic faith is illogical from the testimony of the New Testament. If the gospel is the power of God to the effectually called (1 Cor. 1:24), it is illogical to surmise that under this power, men would stagnate in embryonic faith. This is hollow log error. Primitive Baptists cannot logically affirm that regenerate men show evidences of regeneration, yet claim that they can completely reject the gospel.
I want to doubt Sarrels was trying to imply this. The point is that faith is an evidence of eternal life, not the objective cause of eternal life. Where Sarrels is confusing is arguing for this view on the illogical grounds of seeming "good" men being categorized as damned because they do not embrace the gospel. I have no patience for this type of argument. It's not scriptural and it's not rational. Does his view hinge in it's vindication on what is palatable to sentimental judgments of men? Did he not read Matt. 7:21?
Sarrels is an example of where some Primitive Baptists have gone to excess to differentiate themselves, but his views are hardly accepted in any formal or official capacity. He was just an individual Primitive Baptist Elder that put his pants on one leg at a time just like any other Primitive Baptist.
Garrett stated:
"What is given in regeneration enables one to "please God." This is professed by all Hardshells. But, if one cannot please God without faith, without believing in God, then faith must be what is produced in regeneration. Can Jason show us how the "faith" of Hebrews 11; 6 is devoid of knowledge about God? That it is non-cognitive? But, before I address these things at length, let me now cite the bad things Jason said in his most recent posting."
In the gospel era, the faith of those that are truly regenerate encompasses gospel faith. It is the nature of those truly regenerate to accept whatever measure of revelation that is available. Hebrews does not differentiate between exercised, gospel faith and a principle of grace given in regeneration because it is presumed that the audience has both.
Hebrews was written to an audience of Christians under tremendous pressure to submit to Judaism, and to cast off gospel faith in Jesus. Hebrews is a great book to enlighten those Primitive Baptists who want to argue that it is characteristic for regenerate children of God to reject the gospel. So, in short, I agree with Garrett here, but would add that the subject of faith in Hebrews has as it's context the revealed gospel. It does not imply that the fulness of the revelation available at the time it was written is a necessary condition for a legitimate claim of possession of saving faith (it's a necessary condition for those adults under the sound of the gospel of this book to claim), but implies consistency with Old Testament revelation which was far less than the gospel era. This would also be true of infants, the mentally incompetent, or any outside this revelation.
Garrett argues that the national Jew had an advantage over the Gentiles in the oracles of God being given to them. Paul does state that. I only argued that the Gentiles were under sin the same as the Jews, according to Romans 3:9, though they had no law. The Gentiles were no less damned than the Jews. Now, the Jews had an advantage of the knowledge of the oracles of God, but it is clear that this knowledge advantage was not a spiritual advantage because Paul states in Romans 3:9 that the oracles of God did not make the Jews any spiritually better than the Gentiles. In fact, according to Romans 2, it made the Jews worse than the Gentiles in many ways because the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through the Jews because of their hypocrisy (Romans 2:24).
Is Garrett suggesting that the unregenerate ethnic Jews had an advantage for eternal salvation over the unregenerate Gentiles by the giving of the law alone, and that the Gentiles had a disadvantage to be eternally saved on that basis? While the oracles of God SHOULD have advantaged the Jews in preparation of Christ (Gal. 3:21-24), it is plain from 1 Cor. 1:23 and 2 Cor. 4 that their understanding of the oracles of God was more of a hindrance than a help.
More than this, though the law is holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12), it was given to show sin that it might appear exceeding sinful (7:13). The Jews were "shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed" (Gal. 3:23) under the law. Because of original sin, the spiritual nature of the law is lost on the carnal man, sold unto sin (Romans 7:14). Man, in his natural state, is no more spiritually advantaged by the law than he would be without it. Now, man has more knowledge, i.e. he knows he is a transgressor, but that's a source of concupiscent excitement to many reprobates, not contrition.
The advantage of the Jews only became a spiritual advantage when the oracles of God are embraced in faith, as Paul implies in Romans 3:3. The majority of the ethnic Jews did not believe, though they had the oracles of God, and faith in God that those oracles should lead one to is not made without effect because the Jews, who one would think would be the first to believe (given their knowledge), refused to believe. Death in trespasses and sins makes knowledge of the oracles of God moot until the spirit of God moves upon the face of the deep of the natural man.
Garrett stated:
"Jason believes that Paul's statement that "calling upon the name of the Lord" will bring salvation is a "magic word recital." Is confession that Jesus is Lord a "magic word recital"? Does Jason not denigrate confessing Christ with words? Are the words of the publican - "God be merciful to me a sinner" - also a "magic word recital"? "
The publican did not utter those words with the intention of gaining eternal salvation by the utterance. A true confession of faith is from the heart - from belief; it is not made with the intent to gain eternal life, it is made because a person believes (obviously). It is an evidence of their belief, not belief itself, and whoever truly believes will want to confess Jesus as Lord.
Enough for now. More anon.
Brother Garrett claims that views of soteriology that I have espoused are not the majority report among Primitive Baptists. I have mentioned previously that David Pyles, a prominent Elder among the Old Baptists, has testified to me that this is not the case. Perhaps Brother Garrett's father, who is also an Elder among the PB's, represents more of a minority than Brother Garrett realizes.
Sometimes an abrasive approach incites controversy where the issues broached are not the real or only cause of division. Did Brother Garrett, while among the Primitive Baptists, approach these issues with humility and patience? Or was he as much as a firebrand then as he appears to be on his blog now? As a young Elder among the PB's in the early 80's, did Elder Stephen Garrett intreat the older Elders with the same respect he would his father, as the Scripture commands? I wonder how much of his difficulties were personality rather than doctrine. I appreciate and admire Brother Garrett's intellect and knowledge and I read his blog with interest even where we disagree. I am not arguing ad hominem against Brother Garrett's views here - I'm simply suggesting that Brother Garrett could have been more fruitful with patience. It takes wine time to ferment.
I must admit that I am somewhat critical of Sarrels. Brother Garrett quoted at length from Sarrels' systematic work. It is speculative to suppose that there are multitudes of regenerate, mentally competent adults among pagan nations, as even if the elect are out of every nation, kindred, and tongue that have ever existed, one regenerate person would satisfy that requirement, though the expression itself seems to be in the spirit of a grand scale. The grandiose nature of the expression is identified with the presence of all different nations, not that the number among the distinct nations would be large.
The unscriptural idea he supposes that regenerate individuals under the sound of the gospel would remain with only embryonic faith is illogical from the testimony of the New Testament. If the gospel is the power of God to the effectually called (1 Cor. 1:24), it is illogical to surmise that under this power, men would stagnate in embryonic faith. This is hollow log error. Primitive Baptists cannot logically affirm that regenerate men show evidences of regeneration, yet claim that they can completely reject the gospel.
I want to doubt Sarrels was trying to imply this. The point is that faith is an evidence of eternal life, not the objective cause of eternal life. Where Sarrels is confusing is arguing for this view on the illogical grounds of seeming "good" men being categorized as damned because they do not embrace the gospel. I have no patience for this type of argument. It's not scriptural and it's not rational. Does his view hinge in it's vindication on what is palatable to sentimental judgments of men? Did he not read Matt. 7:21?
Sarrels is an example of where some Primitive Baptists have gone to excess to differentiate themselves, but his views are hardly accepted in any formal or official capacity. He was just an individual Primitive Baptist Elder that put his pants on one leg at a time just like any other Primitive Baptist.
Garrett stated:
"What is given in regeneration enables one to "please God." This is professed by all Hardshells. But, if one cannot please God without faith, without believing in God, then faith must be what is produced in regeneration. Can Jason show us how the "faith" of Hebrews 11; 6 is devoid of knowledge about God? That it is non-cognitive? But, before I address these things at length, let me now cite the bad things Jason said in his most recent posting."
In the gospel era, the faith of those that are truly regenerate encompasses gospel faith. It is the nature of those truly regenerate to accept whatever measure of revelation that is available. Hebrews does not differentiate between exercised, gospel faith and a principle of grace given in regeneration because it is presumed that the audience has both.
Hebrews was written to an audience of Christians under tremendous pressure to submit to Judaism, and to cast off gospel faith in Jesus. Hebrews is a great book to enlighten those Primitive Baptists who want to argue that it is characteristic for regenerate children of God to reject the gospel. So, in short, I agree with Garrett here, but would add that the subject of faith in Hebrews has as it's context the revealed gospel. It does not imply that the fulness of the revelation available at the time it was written is a necessary condition for a legitimate claim of possession of saving faith (it's a necessary condition for those adults under the sound of the gospel of this book to claim), but implies consistency with Old Testament revelation which was far less than the gospel era. This would also be true of infants, the mentally incompetent, or any outside this revelation.
Garrett argues that the national Jew had an advantage over the Gentiles in the oracles of God being given to them. Paul does state that. I only argued that the Gentiles were under sin the same as the Jews, according to Romans 3:9, though they had no law. The Gentiles were no less damned than the Jews. Now, the Jews had an advantage of the knowledge of the oracles of God, but it is clear that this knowledge advantage was not a spiritual advantage because Paul states in Romans 3:9 that the oracles of God did not make the Jews any spiritually better than the Gentiles. In fact, according to Romans 2, it made the Jews worse than the Gentiles in many ways because the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through the Jews because of their hypocrisy (Romans 2:24).
Is Garrett suggesting that the unregenerate ethnic Jews had an advantage for eternal salvation over the unregenerate Gentiles by the giving of the law alone, and that the Gentiles had a disadvantage to be eternally saved on that basis? While the oracles of God SHOULD have advantaged the Jews in preparation of Christ (Gal. 3:21-24), it is plain from 1 Cor. 1:23 and 2 Cor. 4 that their understanding of the oracles of God was more of a hindrance than a help.
More than this, though the law is holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12), it was given to show sin that it might appear exceeding sinful (7:13). The Jews were "shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed" (Gal. 3:23) under the law. Because of original sin, the spiritual nature of the law is lost on the carnal man, sold unto sin (Romans 7:14). Man, in his natural state, is no more spiritually advantaged by the law than he would be without it. Now, man has more knowledge, i.e. he knows he is a transgressor, but that's a source of concupiscent excitement to many reprobates, not contrition.
The advantage of the Jews only became a spiritual advantage when the oracles of God are embraced in faith, as Paul implies in Romans 3:3. The majority of the ethnic Jews did not believe, though they had the oracles of God, and faith in God that those oracles should lead one to is not made without effect because the Jews, who one would think would be the first to believe (given their knowledge), refused to believe. Death in trespasses and sins makes knowledge of the oracles of God moot until the spirit of God moves upon the face of the deep of the natural man.
Garrett stated:
"Jason believes that Paul's statement that "calling upon the name of the Lord" will bring salvation is a "magic word recital." Is confession that Jesus is Lord a "magic word recital"? Does Jason not denigrate confessing Christ with words? Are the words of the publican - "God be merciful to me a sinner" - also a "magic word recital"? "
The publican did not utter those words with the intention of gaining eternal salvation by the utterance. A true confession of faith is from the heart - from belief; it is not made with the intent to gain eternal life, it is made because a person believes (obviously). It is an evidence of their belief, not belief itself, and whoever truly believes will want to confess Jesus as Lord.
Enough for now. More anon.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Garrett on Holmes and Clark
Last Sunday, Garrett posted this: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/12/clark-holmes-on-predestination.html
It was in response to a post here: http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2011/12/clarke-and-holmes-on-decree-of-god.html
The above is a blog of R.L. Vaughn's, but the substance of his posting was a quote from Obadiah Holmes and John Clark. There are several things objectionable in Garrett's comments.
Garrett stated:
"John Clark and Obadiah Holmes were pastors of the first Baptist church in America. Notice that the first Baptists in America were not of the modern Hardshell type, for they say that "all things that come to pass in time" are the result of God's decree and determination. Yet, they also said that God was not the "cause" of "any sin." Surely by"cause" they meant the immediate or direct cause of sin, that he was not the culpable cause. They certainly could not be said to be rejecting the idea that God is no "cause" in any sense without contradicting themselves. God decrees and determines a thing but does not cause it in any sense? Doubtless the denial that God is the "cause" of sin simply meant that God is not the "author of sin," and doubtless Clark and Holmes believed that all things are predestined. They also differentiate between special and general predestination."
Garrett claims that Holmes and Clark were not of the "Hardshell type" because they said that all things come to pass in time as a result of God's decree and determination. This is erroneous. Are there some present Primitive Baptists that deny that sin and evil come to pass by God's determination? Yes there are some, but Garrett presumes that these represent the majority. Present Primitive Baptists have no formal creed that summarizes their doctrine. You have independent ministers that hold different views that can be broadly characterized, but to presume that there is an objective standard of Primitive Baptist doctrine is to misunderstand the autonomous, congregational nature of the Primitive Baptists.
Of course, PB's claim that only the Scripture is a doctrinal standard. However, interpretation renders even this standard somewhat subjective. Historical interpretation of the Scripture is an objective standard, and I agree with Garrett that some present Primitive Baptists are in disagreement with their forefathers on the idea that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass. However, no learned Primitive Baptist has ever denied this truth.
There is a lot of ignorance among Primitive Baptists that I will not deny. The learned Primitive Baptist objection to some adherents of Absolute Predestination is that they refute any difference between the permissive and fiat decree of God in relation to sin, making God the cause of sin the same way in which God is the cause of grace and holiness. It appears, however, that some Absolute Predestinarians reject this view as well, and to them there ought not to be a lack of fellowship. However, the objection is also made that predestination is defined in the Scripture as a specific decree of God, not a synonym for God's general decrees. I do not believe this semantic difference alone (of the previous sentence) should be a test of fellowship, but it could be argued that redefining God's providence as predestination is in the same spirit of dissolving God's permissive decree. Those that seem to insist on using predestination instead of providence also tend to insist that God wills nothing by "bare permission".
Both of these qualifications of supralapsarian Calvinism are present in the quotation of Clark and Holmes. The Fulton brethren would have been in complete agreement with this quotation. Some present PB's ignorantly claim that the men at Fulton, Kentucky were "absoluters" as well, but this is a silly claim. The cause of this is that some present PB's, feeling the weight of the supralapsarian argument that God decrees nothing by "bare permission", have abandoned the Biblical emphasis on God's permissive decree of sin, and instead chosen to claim that sin and evil happen outside the will of God. These brethren flirt with blasphemy, but do not appear to see the implications of this for God's omnipotence and omniscience.
It was in response to a post here: http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2011/12/clarke-and-holmes-on-decree-of-god.html
The above is a blog of R.L. Vaughn's, but the substance of his posting was a quote from Obadiah Holmes and John Clark. There are several things objectionable in Garrett's comments.
Garrett stated:
"John Clark and Obadiah Holmes were pastors of the first Baptist church in America. Notice that the first Baptists in America were not of the modern Hardshell type, for they say that "all things that come to pass in time" are the result of God's decree and determination. Yet, they also said that God was not the "cause" of "any sin." Surely by"cause" they meant the immediate or direct cause of sin, that he was not the culpable cause. They certainly could not be said to be rejecting the idea that God is no "cause" in any sense without contradicting themselves. God decrees and determines a thing but does not cause it in any sense? Doubtless the denial that God is the "cause" of sin simply meant that God is not the "author of sin," and doubtless Clark and Holmes believed that all things are predestined. They also differentiate between special and general predestination."
Garrett claims that Holmes and Clark were not of the "Hardshell type" because they said that all things come to pass in time as a result of God's decree and determination. This is erroneous. Are there some present Primitive Baptists that deny that sin and evil come to pass by God's determination? Yes there are some, but Garrett presumes that these represent the majority. Present Primitive Baptists have no formal creed that summarizes their doctrine. You have independent ministers that hold different views that can be broadly characterized, but to presume that there is an objective standard of Primitive Baptist doctrine is to misunderstand the autonomous, congregational nature of the Primitive Baptists.
Of course, PB's claim that only the Scripture is a doctrinal standard. However, interpretation renders even this standard somewhat subjective. Historical interpretation of the Scripture is an objective standard, and I agree with Garrett that some present Primitive Baptists are in disagreement with their forefathers on the idea that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass. However, no learned Primitive Baptist has ever denied this truth.
There is a lot of ignorance among Primitive Baptists that I will not deny. The learned Primitive Baptist objection to some adherents of Absolute Predestination is that they refute any difference between the permissive and fiat decree of God in relation to sin, making God the cause of sin the same way in which God is the cause of grace and holiness. It appears, however, that some Absolute Predestinarians reject this view as well, and to them there ought not to be a lack of fellowship. However, the objection is also made that predestination is defined in the Scripture as a specific decree of God, not a synonym for God's general decrees. I do not believe this semantic difference alone (of the previous sentence) should be a test of fellowship, but it could be argued that redefining God's providence as predestination is in the same spirit of dissolving God's permissive decree. Those that seem to insist on using predestination instead of providence also tend to insist that God wills nothing by "bare permission".
Both of these qualifications of supralapsarian Calvinism are present in the quotation of Clark and Holmes. The Fulton brethren would have been in complete agreement with this quotation. Some present PB's ignorantly claim that the men at Fulton, Kentucky were "absoluters" as well, but this is a silly claim. The cause of this is that some present PB's, feeling the weight of the supralapsarian argument that God decrees nothing by "bare permission", have abandoned the Biblical emphasis on God's permissive decree of sin, and instead chosen to claim that sin and evil happen outside the will of God. These brethren flirt with blasphemy, but do not appear to see the implications of this for God's omnipotence and omniscience.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Garrett's Comments 11-5-11
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/jasons-latest.html
Garrett stated:
"Let us ask Jason some questions for clarification. Is natural revelation sufficient for saving faith? Can one have "saving faith" apart from the special revelation of scripture? If you agree that "knowledge of revelation" is necessary for "saving faith," how can you claim that salvation is through a "faith" that is non-cognitive? Is belief in one God alone required for one to have "saving faith"? Is it "saving faith" if there is no knowledge of Christ or of the gospel? What is "this knowledge"? Can one be finally saved without "saving faith"? Was Paul describing "saving faith" in Romans 10? It is hard for me to believe that Jason would tell enquiring sinners that he does not know the quantity or quality of faith that is necessary for salvation."
No revelation, natural or special, is "sufficient" for saving faith - Garrett should know better than that. In damnation, Gentiles outside of special revelation were no more disadvantaged than Jews who had special revelation, according to Paul in Romans 3:9.
In mentally competent adults, the principle of grace infused by God at regeneration would embrace the revelation of God in nature as well any special revelation given by God, but it is not Paul's point in Romans 1 to give any hope of eternal salvation apart from special revelation.
Eternal salvation is never evidenced by a state of grace that is non-cognitive, but that does not mean that a state of grace is irreducible from cognitive faith, as the case of mentally handicapped and infants shows. The effectual calling of God of infants and the mentally in-firmed must inform a rational soteriology. In allowing for their calling, it is evident that a principle of grace is deposited by the Spirit of God - an incorruptible seed (1 John 3:9) - that is divisible from all spiritual evidences that follow it naturally as life allows, as fleshed out by Gill:
for his seed remaineth in him;
not the word of God, or the Gospel, though that is a seed which is sown by the ministers of it, and blessed by God, and by which he regenerates his people; and which having a place in their hearts, becomes the ingrafted word, and there abides, nor can it be rooted out; where it powerfully teaches to avoid sin, is an antidote against it, and a preservative from it: nor the Holy Spirit of God, though he is the author of the new birth, and the principle of all grace; and where he once is, he always abides; and through the power of his grace believers prevail against sin, and mortify the deeds of the body, and live: but rather the grace of the Spirit, the internal principle of grace in the soul, the new nature, or new man formed in the soul, is meant; which seminally contains all grace in it, and which, like seed, springs up and gradually increases, and always abides; and is pure and incorruptible, and neither sins itself, nor encourages sin, but opposes, checks, and prevents it:
Paul was describing the evidences of true possession of saving faith in Romans 10:9-10, not a plan for "magic word recital" that guarantees eternal life.
Garrett stated:
"Let us again ask Jason some questions for clarification. What is the least amount of knowledge that one must have in order to be judged to have "saving faith"? Can a person have a "general trust in the person of Christ" apart from special divine revelation? Did not Paul affirm that knowledge of Christ is only to be expected from those who have heard Christ preached?"
In this present gospel era, saving faith is judged relative to the gospel revelation of Jesus Christ as savior. If someone does not believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins, they cannot be judged to have saving faith - this is clear from Mark 16:16. One cannot know about Jesus Christ specifically except from special revelation. And, yes, Paul implies as Garrett questions in regard to the gospel supplying knowledge of Jesus Christ, but why would he say that if Garrett believes that Paul also taught that God could deliver the gospel directly per 1 Thess. 4:9? I'm not quite sure why Garrett felt these questions were necessary or clarifying. If a standard of gospel knowledge for viable faith is too high, Peter would have to be concluded as unregenerate when he was unclear on the need for Christ to die for the sins of His people in Matt. 16:22.
Garrett stated:
"Jason contradicts himself in the above words. He allows that a "general trust in the person of Christ" is "neccessary for saving faith," but then says that he does not have"liberty to judge" about the kind or amount of knowledge that is necessary. Did he not"judge" when he said that a "general trust" in Christ is necessary? Was this not a statement about the "amount" and "quality" of "saving faith" and understanding? Finally, do the scriptures not "judge" the amount and quality of that faith which is necessary for salvation?"
This is a ridiculous charge of Garrett. I said "amount" and "quality", not "kind". The point I made was that we are not at liberty to judge as to the extent of gospel knowledge necessary beyond a general trust in Christ. What fiction to claim this is a contradiction. I am simply harmonizing the facts we know of Peter into a more biblical soteriology. Obviously Peter had a basic trust in Jesus as Messiah, but he erred in trust and had incomplete knowledge of how Jesus would be Lord.
Garrett stated:
"Jason admits that the word "faith" is a word "that denotes cognitive action"! Has he not left Hardshellism by this affirmation? Praise the Lord! Why did he early on in our debate attempt to divorce cognition and knowledge from the definition of "faith"?"
Garrett is so eager to debate it clouds his judgment. Obviously, I was trying to clarify the use of a non-cognitive "faith" in this context. Calling it by another name doesn't overthrow the concept! I like Gill's use of a "principle of grace" for this concept rather than "faith" because it's less confusing. It should be apparent to Garrett that this distinction has been argued all along whether I called it the "root of faith", "fundamental faith", "rudimentary faith" etc. It was always Gill's principle of grace that was in view.
Garrett stated:
"I cannot believe that Jason would think that instances of doubt and lack of faith in the promises of God make a true believer become an unbeliever. Did Peter become an"unbeliever" when he denied the Lord? If so, then Peter did not lie when he said "I know not the man," and "I am not one of his disciples." If he was lost, then he told the truth when he confessed to not being a disciple of Jesus. But, if he was a disciple, and knew that he was, then he lied when he said he was not. I affirm that Peter was a believer but denied what he knew was the truth. Peter was still a believer in Jesus, though he denied it. Yes, there was a lack of faith, as far as courage and commitment are concerned, but there was no evidence that Peter had changed his mind relative to his confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter fell from his own "stedfastness." (II Peter 3: 17)"
In that Peter was lying in his denial, Garrett still has contradictions in his biblical understanding, as Garrett believes that Paul makes it clear that, "with the mouth confession is made unto eternal salvation (Romans 10:10)." This text, as Garrett understands it, makes public confession of Christ requisite for saving faith. Garrett's concession that Peter lacked courage and commitment is in direct contradiction with Paul's statement that whosoever truly believes will not be ashamed to confess Jesus Christ publicly (Romans 10:11).
By allowing that Peter still believed in his heart unto righteousness (Romans 10:10), Garrett divides confession from belief in Romans 10:10 - I imagine he finds this tortuous to concede. So we see that Garrett logically qualifies the confession of Romans 10:9,10 as an evidence only of eternal life. Then Garrett must allow that it is possible, though not characteristic of truly regenerate children of God, that faith can be an inner belief only without the evidence of confession, as in the case of Peter's unbelief.
What, then, could the salvation of confession be in Romans 10:10? It cannot be eternal salvation proper as if the confession of Jesus Christ causes eternal salvation, as Peter in his denial, as a regenerate man, fails this standard. Garrett is forced to concede that confession is simply consistent with truly possessing eternal salvation and is a "timely" means by which the regenerate lay hold of the knowledge of eternal life, not that eternal salvation is actually conferred by confession.
If Garrett interprets Paul to inseparably join confession with belief, Garrett would make public denial of Christ to be a denial of cognitive faith, which would prove either (1) Peter's unregenerate state or (2) that a cognitive faith is reducible to a non-cognitive principle of grace in it's barest essence, as a tree can be dead in it's trunk and branches above the ground - with the remaining life force in the roots that will produce a shoot that will replace the original tree.
It's "Hardshellism" by either conditional time salvation or a Spirit Alone view of a seed of faith, unless Garrett claims that Peter was unregenerate.
Garrett stated:
""Them" refers to those who "know not God" and who "obey not the gospel." Yes, they are not elect, but that is to be inferred from other passages, not from the immediate context."
If Garrett agrees the "them" is the non-elect, it will not matter if it is inferred from the immediate context or the broader context of the whole counsel of God in terms of the theological applicability of this passage. He concedes that the "them" is the non-elect. I never disputed the fact that the descriptions of the "them" are of not knowing God or obeying the gospel.
Garrett stated:
"Jason reads the words of Paul in this manner - "those non-elect who know not God and obey not the gospel." But, this rephrasing of the words would seem to imply that some non-elect do know God and do obey the gospel."
No, it doesn't imply that. I do not see at all why the text would intimate that idea. Any sense of limitation on the descriptions of knowing not God and obeying not the gospel would be absolved in the context of the "them" being the non-elect that are still living and actively persecuting the Church on the earth at the second coming of Christ. Those descriptions are universally descriptive of the non-elect during the entire gospel era, but all of the non-elect do not seem to be Paul's contextual reference, as he refers to those that militate against the Church.
Garrett stated:
" If these two descriptive expressions describe all the non-elect, and them only, then would not the counter terms describe all the elect? That the elect are they who "know God" and who "obey the gospel"? Jason wants us to believe that "them that know not God and who obey not the gospel" may be predicated of those who are regenerated as well as of those who are not. Absurd."
Yes, that would be absurd. I'm relieved I don't believe that. The two converse expressions would describe the elect that were under the sound of the gospel.
Garrett stated:
"He speaks of the description being "made to apply" to regenerated people! Who but a Hardshell could possibly see that in Paul's words?"
Garrett seems to forget that I was arguing against his idea that Paul had in mind anyone that had ever disobeyed the gospel. Garrett at the beginning argued for that view. If the text populates the "them" according to that standard it would logically include the elect that disobeyed the gospel before they were quickened. The "them" is contextually constrained to those persecuting the Church at the second coming of Christ, but it is applicable in principle to any that disobey the gospel, as such behavior evidences eternal damnation.
Garrett stated:
"One wonders how scripture could be any plainer in condemning all who reject Christ. How would Jason affirm the propostion that says all unbelievers will be lost? Let him put such an affirmation into words and I bet you I can show those same words in scripture. If the scriptures I have cited do not teach that all who reject Christ are lost, then how would it be stated any plainer? The fact that the faith and obedience of the children of God is not perfect does not negate faith and obedience being necessary for being eternally saved."
It is teaching in principle that those who reject Christ will be damned. There is no hope of eternal life beyond embracing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Gospel disobedience is an evidence of eternal damnation, but obviously, as Peter, an instance of gospel disobedience does not necessarily equate to eternal damnation. All those under the sound of the gospel that are truly regenerated will believe in Christ on some cognitive level, as the Spirit would testify of the truth of the gospel (Romans 8:14,16). Faith and obedience are characteristic of truly regenerate individuals, and it is characteristic of those preserved in Christ that they persevere in faith and holiness (1 John 5:3-5).
Garrett stated:
"Jason does not represent my views, or supposed "error," correctly. I never affirmed that"them" did or could refer to any of the regenerate. Again, Jason is fighting straw men. He wants to argue with plain declarations of scripture which say all those who do not believe in Christ will be damned. Further, when the regenerate are called "believers," it does not mean that they have perfect faith, and that they are never, in any sense, guilty of unbelief."
If Garrett qualifies 2 Thess. 1:7-9 away from any acts of gospel disobedience by the regenerate, like Peter, he must concede that the gospel disobedience of 2 Thess is a degree of disobedience, not just any disobedience, which is what I always argued about this passage! I always argued that the passage should be understood in terms of what would be characteristic of one's life. Only the unregenerate are capable of complete unbelief and gospel disobedience, which is the degree of gospel disobedience under consideration. Why did he argue against this view originally, and then concede here that the disobedience under consideration is a degree of disobedience from which the regenerate are clearly excluded? He here contradicts his original position.
Garrett stated:
"Can one who's life is characterized by unbelief and gospel disobedience be saved? Only a Hardshell heretic would affirm such. Jason will acknowledge that the regenerated are described as being "led of the Spirit," but why does he reject "believer" as being descriptive of the regenerated? Are not the terms "believer" and "unbeliever," in scripture, not titles of saved versus lost people?"
One whose life is characterized by unbelief was not saved by Christ, unless they are quickened late or at the end of life, of course. Pervasive unbelief is not characteristic of those truly regenerate. I have never rejected "believer" as being descriptive of the regenerate. What I have argued against is limiting the regenerate to NT, gospel believers. In the Scripture, under the sound of the gospel, believer and unbeliever are titles of those redeemed by Christ and those foreordained to damnation.
Garrett stated:
"Jason allows that "pervasive unbelief" can characterize or describe born again people! Further, he wants to say that the "pervasive unbelief" of the "regenerated" will only bring them physical death, but not eternal death! How unscriptural, as I have shown! What is it that those who sow to Spirit receive for their sowing? Is it not "eternal life"? Then why say that the sowing to the flesh is not eternal death? "Consistency thou art a jewel.""
I never said that pervasive unbelief characterizes the born again. I plainly reserved such a description for the unregenerate. Garrett asked me how pervasive unbelief could be in a child of God. To that I responded that unbelief could be sufficient enough to ruin a child of God's life. I was not admitting 'pervasive unbelief' as I defined in reference to the unregenerate, I was indicating the degree of unbelief that can exist in the regenerate. See how Garrett falsely characterizes my statements to give the impression of a contradiction, but there is no content to his characterization. Debate for debate's sake! Where has truth flown?
The examples I gave of the degree of unbelief of which the regenerate are capable - and the consequence of physical death - were not my own. They are plainly in the Scripture in Samson and King Josiah. Does Garrett place Samson and King Josiah in eternal death? My examples were Scriptural.
Why limit the context of Gal. 6:7,8 to an eternal context? It entails a contrast of time to eternity. The ultimate result of sowing to the flesh or of the spirit is eternal death or life, obviously - I certainly agree with Garrett in principle. But, this is not to say that children of God may not "groan in disgrace rather than grow in grace", if they fail to mortify the deeds of the body.
The word for corruption - φθοράν - denotes temporal decay, as in 1 Cor. 15:42 or 2 Peter 2:12. There is no compelling reason to limit the use of this word to eternal death in this context. The point of the text is that everything sown to the flesh is transient. The contrast is to transience versus immortality, not eternal life and death, as in, "lay not for yourselves treasures on earth where moth and rust doth corrupt." I recall on studying this text that Gill agrees with this exegesis. Garrett looks for "Hardshellism" where it isn't and objects to it even when it's justified. Can any reader doubt his prejudice, especially as pertaining to this text? How about some Biblical exegesis before accusing me of inconsistency?
Garrett stated:
"Further, where has Jason proven that those "redeemed out of" all the kindreds of the earth were saved apart from that faith which comes by hearing the word of God? Again, why can he not simply cite clear statements of scripture that say some are saved apart from faith?"
Garrett obviously does not believe the gospel has been preached by man to all nations that have ever existed. So he must consider that God has preached the gospel directly. But, how does this square with Paul in Romans 10:14? Paul does not allow in this text that any outside of special revelation can hear unless a preacher be sent. Sending a preacher is not God going Himself.
Garrett stated:
"What an admission! If Jason is correct, and he is, then why has God not sent Hardshell preachers to all these heathen elect?"
Maybe God has. Besides, God can use a gospel preached of contention to instruct - the impure gospel as preached by other orders could still be some measure of temporal blessing. Who knows that there are even "many" elect among the heathen, especially before the gospel era? Paul stated that the gospel had been preached as far as God intended at the time of Paul (Romans 10:18).
Garrett stated:
"Further, why does Jason not also "find it inconsistent" for the scriptures to say that all unbelievers will be damned and for Hardshells to deny it?"
I have stated many times that it is erroneous for some present Primitive Baptists to affirm that, under the sound of the gospel, the regenerate will totally reject Christ. These Primitive Baptists are in error, but these quasi-universalists are not the majority.
Garrett stated:
"Further, Jason misrepresents again Dr. Gill. If he would recall the citations I gave from Gill's writings on saving faith, Gill plainly said that it had Christ for its object. In Jason's latest post, he even cites me where I cite these words of Gill - "God the Son is the object of faith.""
Garrett is incorrect. In Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14, regarding which Garrett and I were arguing about Gill's comments in regard to infants, Gill stated that faith could be made to grasp "the proper object of faith". Gill did not - in this context - state that the faith of the unevangelized had Christ as it's object. My argument was that if Gill intended to say that the object of faith was Christ, he would have stated it as such. But, it is clear that Gill was not referring to the knowledge of Christ because the faith Gill was theorizing that God could work in the unevangelized was APART FROM THE WORD. Gill stated this clearly in his commentary.
Garrett stated:
"Let us ask Jason some questions for clarification. Is natural revelation sufficient for saving faith? Can one have "saving faith" apart from the special revelation of scripture? If you agree that "knowledge of revelation" is necessary for "saving faith," how can you claim that salvation is through a "faith" that is non-cognitive? Is belief in one God alone required for one to have "saving faith"? Is it "saving faith" if there is no knowledge of Christ or of the gospel? What is "this knowledge"? Can one be finally saved without "saving faith"? Was Paul describing "saving faith" in Romans 10? It is hard for me to believe that Jason would tell enquiring sinners that he does not know the quantity or quality of faith that is necessary for salvation."
No revelation, natural or special, is "sufficient" for saving faith - Garrett should know better than that. In damnation, Gentiles outside of special revelation were no more disadvantaged than Jews who had special revelation, according to Paul in Romans 3:9.
In mentally competent adults, the principle of grace infused by God at regeneration would embrace the revelation of God in nature as well any special revelation given by God, but it is not Paul's point in Romans 1 to give any hope of eternal salvation apart from special revelation.
Eternal salvation is never evidenced by a state of grace that is non-cognitive, but that does not mean that a state of grace is irreducible from cognitive faith, as the case of mentally handicapped and infants shows. The effectual calling of God of infants and the mentally in-firmed must inform a rational soteriology. In allowing for their calling, it is evident that a principle of grace is deposited by the Spirit of God - an incorruptible seed (1 John 3:9) - that is divisible from all spiritual evidences that follow it naturally as life allows, as fleshed out by Gill:
for his seed remaineth in him;
not the word of God, or the Gospel, though that is a seed which is sown by the ministers of it, and blessed by God, and by which he regenerates his people; and which having a place in their hearts, becomes the ingrafted word, and there abides, nor can it be rooted out; where it powerfully teaches to avoid sin, is an antidote against it, and a preservative from it: nor the Holy Spirit of God, though he is the author of the new birth, and the principle of all grace; and where he once is, he always abides; and through the power of his grace believers prevail against sin, and mortify the deeds of the body, and live: but rather the grace of the Spirit, the internal principle of grace in the soul, the new nature, or new man formed in the soul, is meant; which seminally contains all grace in it, and which, like seed, springs up and gradually increases, and always abides; and is pure and incorruptible, and neither sins itself, nor encourages sin, but opposes, checks, and prevents it:
Paul was describing the evidences of true possession of saving faith in Romans 10:9-10, not a plan for "magic word recital" that guarantees eternal life.
Garrett stated:
"Let us again ask Jason some questions for clarification. What is the least amount of knowledge that one must have in order to be judged to have "saving faith"? Can a person have a "general trust in the person of Christ" apart from special divine revelation? Did not Paul affirm that knowledge of Christ is only to be expected from those who have heard Christ preached?"
In this present gospel era, saving faith is judged relative to the gospel revelation of Jesus Christ as savior. If someone does not believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins, they cannot be judged to have saving faith - this is clear from Mark 16:16. One cannot know about Jesus Christ specifically except from special revelation. And, yes, Paul implies as Garrett questions in regard to the gospel supplying knowledge of Jesus Christ, but why would he say that if Garrett believes that Paul also taught that God could deliver the gospel directly per 1 Thess. 4:9? I'm not quite sure why Garrett felt these questions were necessary or clarifying. If a standard of gospel knowledge for viable faith is too high, Peter would have to be concluded as unregenerate when he was unclear on the need for Christ to die for the sins of His people in Matt. 16:22.
Garrett stated:
"Jason contradicts himself in the above words. He allows that a "general trust in the person of Christ" is "neccessary for saving faith," but then says that he does not have"liberty to judge" about the kind or amount of knowledge that is necessary. Did he not"judge" when he said that a "general trust" in Christ is necessary? Was this not a statement about the "amount" and "quality" of "saving faith" and understanding? Finally, do the scriptures not "judge" the amount and quality of that faith which is necessary for salvation?"
This is a ridiculous charge of Garrett. I said "amount" and "quality", not "kind". The point I made was that we are not at liberty to judge as to the extent of gospel knowledge necessary beyond a general trust in Christ. What fiction to claim this is a contradiction. I am simply harmonizing the facts we know of Peter into a more biblical soteriology. Obviously Peter had a basic trust in Jesus as Messiah, but he erred in trust and had incomplete knowledge of how Jesus would be Lord.
Garrett stated:
"Jason admits that the word "faith" is a word "that denotes cognitive action"! Has he not left Hardshellism by this affirmation? Praise the Lord! Why did he early on in our debate attempt to divorce cognition and knowledge from the definition of "faith"?"
Garrett is so eager to debate it clouds his judgment. Obviously, I was trying to clarify the use of a non-cognitive "faith" in this context. Calling it by another name doesn't overthrow the concept! I like Gill's use of a "principle of grace" for this concept rather than "faith" because it's less confusing. It should be apparent to Garrett that this distinction has been argued all along whether I called it the "root of faith", "fundamental faith", "rudimentary faith" etc. It was always Gill's principle of grace that was in view.
Garrett stated:
"I cannot believe that Jason would think that instances of doubt and lack of faith in the promises of God make a true believer become an unbeliever. Did Peter become an"unbeliever" when he denied the Lord? If so, then Peter did not lie when he said "I know not the man," and "I am not one of his disciples." If he was lost, then he told the truth when he confessed to not being a disciple of Jesus. But, if he was a disciple, and knew that he was, then he lied when he said he was not. I affirm that Peter was a believer but denied what he knew was the truth. Peter was still a believer in Jesus, though he denied it. Yes, there was a lack of faith, as far as courage and commitment are concerned, but there was no evidence that Peter had changed his mind relative to his confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter fell from his own "stedfastness." (II Peter 3: 17)"
In that Peter was lying in his denial, Garrett still has contradictions in his biblical understanding, as Garrett believes that Paul makes it clear that, "with the mouth confession is made unto eternal salvation (Romans 10:10)." This text, as Garrett understands it, makes public confession of Christ requisite for saving faith. Garrett's concession that Peter lacked courage and commitment is in direct contradiction with Paul's statement that whosoever truly believes will not be ashamed to confess Jesus Christ publicly (Romans 10:11).
By allowing that Peter still believed in his heart unto righteousness (Romans 10:10), Garrett divides confession from belief in Romans 10:10 - I imagine he finds this tortuous to concede. So we see that Garrett logically qualifies the confession of Romans 10:9,10 as an evidence only of eternal life. Then Garrett must allow that it is possible, though not characteristic of truly regenerate children of God, that faith can be an inner belief only without the evidence of confession, as in the case of Peter's unbelief.
What, then, could the salvation of confession be in Romans 10:10? It cannot be eternal salvation proper as if the confession of Jesus Christ causes eternal salvation, as Peter in his denial, as a regenerate man, fails this standard. Garrett is forced to concede that confession is simply consistent with truly possessing eternal salvation and is a "timely" means by which the regenerate lay hold of the knowledge of eternal life, not that eternal salvation is actually conferred by confession.
If Garrett interprets Paul to inseparably join confession with belief, Garrett would make public denial of Christ to be a denial of cognitive faith, which would prove either (1) Peter's unregenerate state or (2) that a cognitive faith is reducible to a non-cognitive principle of grace in it's barest essence, as a tree can be dead in it's trunk and branches above the ground - with the remaining life force in the roots that will produce a shoot that will replace the original tree.
It's "Hardshellism" by either conditional time salvation or a Spirit Alone view of a seed of faith, unless Garrett claims that Peter was unregenerate.
Garrett stated:
""Them" refers to those who "know not God" and who "obey not the gospel." Yes, they are not elect, but that is to be inferred from other passages, not from the immediate context."
If Garrett agrees the "them" is the non-elect, it will not matter if it is inferred from the immediate context or the broader context of the whole counsel of God in terms of the theological applicability of this passage. He concedes that the "them" is the non-elect. I never disputed the fact that the descriptions of the "them" are of not knowing God or obeying the gospel.
Garrett stated:
"Jason reads the words of Paul in this manner - "those non-elect who know not God and obey not the gospel." But, this rephrasing of the words would seem to imply that some non-elect do know God and do obey the gospel."
No, it doesn't imply that. I do not see at all why the text would intimate that idea. Any sense of limitation on the descriptions of knowing not God and obeying not the gospel would be absolved in the context of the "them" being the non-elect that are still living and actively persecuting the Church on the earth at the second coming of Christ. Those descriptions are universally descriptive of the non-elect during the entire gospel era, but all of the non-elect do not seem to be Paul's contextual reference, as he refers to those that militate against the Church.
Garrett stated:
" If these two descriptive expressions describe all the non-elect, and them only, then would not the counter terms describe all the elect? That the elect are they who "know God" and who "obey the gospel"? Jason wants us to believe that "them that know not God and who obey not the gospel" may be predicated of those who are regenerated as well as of those who are not. Absurd."
Yes, that would be absurd. I'm relieved I don't believe that. The two converse expressions would describe the elect that were under the sound of the gospel.
Garrett stated:
"He speaks of the description being "made to apply" to regenerated people! Who but a Hardshell could possibly see that in Paul's words?"
Garrett seems to forget that I was arguing against his idea that Paul had in mind anyone that had ever disobeyed the gospel. Garrett at the beginning argued for that view. If the text populates the "them" according to that standard it would logically include the elect that disobeyed the gospel before they were quickened. The "them" is contextually constrained to those persecuting the Church at the second coming of Christ, but it is applicable in principle to any that disobey the gospel, as such behavior evidences eternal damnation.
Garrett stated:
"One wonders how scripture could be any plainer in condemning all who reject Christ. How would Jason affirm the propostion that says all unbelievers will be lost? Let him put such an affirmation into words and I bet you I can show those same words in scripture. If the scriptures I have cited do not teach that all who reject Christ are lost, then how would it be stated any plainer? The fact that the faith and obedience of the children of God is not perfect does not negate faith and obedience being necessary for being eternally saved."
It is teaching in principle that those who reject Christ will be damned. There is no hope of eternal life beyond embracing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Gospel disobedience is an evidence of eternal damnation, but obviously, as Peter, an instance of gospel disobedience does not necessarily equate to eternal damnation. All those under the sound of the gospel that are truly regenerated will believe in Christ on some cognitive level, as the Spirit would testify of the truth of the gospel (Romans 8:14,16). Faith and obedience are characteristic of truly regenerate individuals, and it is characteristic of those preserved in Christ that they persevere in faith and holiness (1 John 5:3-5).
Garrett stated:
"Jason does not represent my views, or supposed "error," correctly. I never affirmed that"them" did or could refer to any of the regenerate. Again, Jason is fighting straw men. He wants to argue with plain declarations of scripture which say all those who do not believe in Christ will be damned. Further, when the regenerate are called "believers," it does not mean that they have perfect faith, and that they are never, in any sense, guilty of unbelief."
If Garrett qualifies 2 Thess. 1:7-9 away from any acts of gospel disobedience by the regenerate, like Peter, he must concede that the gospel disobedience of 2 Thess is a degree of disobedience, not just any disobedience, which is what I always argued about this passage! I always argued that the passage should be understood in terms of what would be characteristic of one's life. Only the unregenerate are capable of complete unbelief and gospel disobedience, which is the degree of gospel disobedience under consideration. Why did he argue against this view originally, and then concede here that the disobedience under consideration is a degree of disobedience from which the regenerate are clearly excluded? He here contradicts his original position.
Garrett stated:
"Can one who's life is characterized by unbelief and gospel disobedience be saved? Only a Hardshell heretic would affirm such. Jason will acknowledge that the regenerated are described as being "led of the Spirit," but why does he reject "believer" as being descriptive of the regenerated? Are not the terms "believer" and "unbeliever," in scripture, not titles of saved versus lost people?"
One whose life is characterized by unbelief was not saved by Christ, unless they are quickened late or at the end of life, of course. Pervasive unbelief is not characteristic of those truly regenerate. I have never rejected "believer" as being descriptive of the regenerate. What I have argued against is limiting the regenerate to NT, gospel believers. In the Scripture, under the sound of the gospel, believer and unbeliever are titles of those redeemed by Christ and those foreordained to damnation.
Garrett stated:
"Jason allows that "pervasive unbelief" can characterize or describe born again people! Further, he wants to say that the "pervasive unbelief" of the "regenerated" will only bring them physical death, but not eternal death! How unscriptural, as I have shown! What is it that those who sow to Spirit receive for their sowing? Is it not "eternal life"? Then why say that the sowing to the flesh is not eternal death? "Consistency thou art a jewel.""
I never said that pervasive unbelief characterizes the born again. I plainly reserved such a description for the unregenerate. Garrett asked me how pervasive unbelief could be in a child of God. To that I responded that unbelief could be sufficient enough to ruin a child of God's life. I was not admitting 'pervasive unbelief' as I defined in reference to the unregenerate, I was indicating the degree of unbelief that can exist in the regenerate. See how Garrett falsely characterizes my statements to give the impression of a contradiction, but there is no content to his characterization. Debate for debate's sake! Where has truth flown?
The examples I gave of the degree of unbelief of which the regenerate are capable - and the consequence of physical death - were not my own. They are plainly in the Scripture in Samson and King Josiah. Does Garrett place Samson and King Josiah in eternal death? My examples were Scriptural.
Why limit the context of Gal. 6:7,8 to an eternal context? It entails a contrast of time to eternity. The ultimate result of sowing to the flesh or of the spirit is eternal death or life, obviously - I certainly agree with Garrett in principle. But, this is not to say that children of God may not "groan in disgrace rather than grow in grace", if they fail to mortify the deeds of the body.
The word for corruption - φθοράν - denotes temporal decay, as in 1 Cor. 15:42 or 2 Peter 2:12. There is no compelling reason to limit the use of this word to eternal death in this context. The point of the text is that everything sown to the flesh is transient. The contrast is to transience versus immortality, not eternal life and death, as in, "lay not for yourselves treasures on earth where moth and rust doth corrupt." I recall on studying this text that Gill agrees with this exegesis. Garrett looks for "Hardshellism" where it isn't and objects to it even when it's justified. Can any reader doubt his prejudice, especially as pertaining to this text? How about some Biblical exegesis before accusing me of inconsistency?
Garrett stated:
"Further, where has Jason proven that those "redeemed out of" all the kindreds of the earth were saved apart from that faith which comes by hearing the word of God? Again, why can he not simply cite clear statements of scripture that say some are saved apart from faith?"
Garrett obviously does not believe the gospel has been preached by man to all nations that have ever existed. So he must consider that God has preached the gospel directly. But, how does this square with Paul in Romans 10:14? Paul does not allow in this text that any outside of special revelation can hear unless a preacher be sent. Sending a preacher is not God going Himself.
Garrett stated:
"What an admission! If Jason is correct, and he is, then why has God not sent Hardshell preachers to all these heathen elect?"
Maybe God has. Besides, God can use a gospel preached of contention to instruct - the impure gospel as preached by other orders could still be some measure of temporal blessing. Who knows that there are even "many" elect among the heathen, especially before the gospel era? Paul stated that the gospel had been preached as far as God intended at the time of Paul (Romans 10:18).
Garrett stated:
"Further, why does Jason not also "find it inconsistent" for the scriptures to say that all unbelievers will be damned and for Hardshells to deny it?"
I have stated many times that it is erroneous for some present Primitive Baptists to affirm that, under the sound of the gospel, the regenerate will totally reject Christ. These Primitive Baptists are in error, but these quasi-universalists are not the majority.
Garrett stated:
"Further, Jason misrepresents again Dr. Gill. If he would recall the citations I gave from Gill's writings on saving faith, Gill plainly said that it had Christ for its object. In Jason's latest post, he even cites me where I cite these words of Gill - "God the Son is the object of faith.""
Garrett is incorrect. In Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14, regarding which Garrett and I were arguing about Gill's comments in regard to infants, Gill stated that faith could be made to grasp "the proper object of faith". Gill did not - in this context - state that the faith of the unevangelized had Christ as it's object. My argument was that if Gill intended to say that the object of faith was Christ, he would have stated it as such. But, it is clear that Gill was not referring to the knowledge of Christ because the faith Gill was theorizing that God could work in the unevangelized was APART FROM THE WORD. Gill stated this clearly in his commentary.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Garrett's Comments 11-4-11
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/does-david-pyles-agree.html
Garrett stated:
"On saving faith, Dr. Gill wrote:
"...certain it is that salvation is promised to faith, and connected with it, "He that believes shall be saved", and is what faith issues in; true believers receive "the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls" (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 1:9), and this is the faith that is to be treated of; and next will be considered,
Secondly, God the Son is the object of faith...his miracles, were written by the evangelists, "that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing, they might have life through his name" (John 20:31)...Knowledge of Christ is necessary to the exercise of faith on him, for "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" and if they have not so much as heard of him, they cannot know him, and consequently cannot exercise faith upon him; and "How shall they hear without a preacher" to make him known unto them? (Rom. 10:14)." These words of Dr. Gill uproot Hardshellism! First, he does not define the "faith" that saves as being non-cognitive, as does Jason. He does not even say - "unless Paul is talking about a non-cognitive faith." When Gill thought that two or more interpretations of certain passages were possible, and which he could not say for sure which was the original intent of the writer, he would say it may mean this, or it may mean that, or say it means this, "unless" he means that. But, here Paul gives only one possible interpretation. It is this; The "faith" that saves is the faith that is cognitive, and that cannot be divorced from knowledge. "
I agree that saving faith embraces the knowledge of revelation available - my point is that believers do not perfectly embrace this knowledge at all times. Abraham believed God's promise and Christ's righteousness was imputed to him, but Abraham later scoffed at the means by which God would bring about this promise in Sarah. Abraham still possessed saving faith in the general promise of God, but did not perfectly embrace the promise of God similar to Peter's lack of faith in the entire mission of Jesus.
We are not at liberty to judge what amount or quality of knowledge is necessary for saving faith beyond a general trust in the person of Christ. We cannot judge the heart, afterall, and must allow that individuals can be intellectually confused on the gospel, but be sincere children of God.
Garrett stated:
"Notice that Gill does not say that a certain kind of faith is cognitive and has knowledge, but says "faith," denoting one kind. Faith was never given a Hardshell definition by the new testament writers, and not by Dr. Gill. Hardshells often speak of the faith that is given in regeneration as being non-cognitive and without knowledge. And, they cannot show from scripture how their definition of a non-cognitive and ignorant faith is taught and described. Gill says that faith and faith knowledge are necessary for being saved. Again, it is Hardshellism uprooted. Gill does not say "saving knowledge is only a necessary ingredient to this kind of faith, but is not necessary to another kind of faith.""
Gill plainly divorced the "principle of grace infused by regeneration" from gospel faith here:
"It is also signified by "seed" (1 John 3:9). "Whosoever is born of God—his seed remaineth in him"; which is the principle of grace infused in regeneration; and as seed contains in it virtually, all that after proceeds from it, the blade, stalk, ear, and full corn in the ear; so the first principle of grace implanted in the heart, seminally contains all the grace which afterwards appears, and all the fruits, effects, acts, and exercises of it."
This idea of a "principle of grace" was the non-cognitive element that Gill stated is implanted in infants in his Romans 10:14 commentary. Whether we call this a "principle of grace" or "implanted faith" - perhaps 'faith' is the wrong term to use for this, as it is confusing to use a word that denotes cognitive action - it results in the deposit of some spiritual element that is irreducible to cognitive action. Gill never states that infants exhibit cognitive action or that God imbues them with cognitive powers so they can exercise faith - this is Garrett stretching to find support in Gill for an idea that is only in Garrett's mind. I'll deal with Garrett's comments on Gill's Romans 10:14 commentary in a moment.
Garrett stated:
"So? How is his view on eternal justification a contradiction to his view on regeneration and saving faith? "
Gill plainly claims that faith is not a "causa sine qua non" for justification and, ultimately, eternal salvation, as the case of elect infants shows. It is inconsistent, in a systematic work, for Gill to allow this, and yet claim that it is God's "normal way" to save his people (adults being a minority in comparison to the infants that have died in infancy) by the preaching of the gospel.
Garrett stated:
"Does Gill contradict himself on infants? Perhaps. But, rather than indict him on the charge of being "inconsistent" or "contradictory," I would rather seek to see how he may be interpreted so as not to be thought of as inconsistent. Jason wants to argue this proposition - "since Gill taught that justification did not require faith, therefore he must have believed that regeneration, rebirth, and quickening, likewise do not require faith." But, the proposition is false."
Garrett made me chuckle a bit here. Garrett cannot help but prove that Gill contradicted himself. Garrett has already admitted that Gill taught in his writing on Eternal Justification that infants do not have gospel faith. If Garrett proves, as he is trying to prove, that Gill taught that infants do have gospel faith in Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14, he demonstrates an elementary contradiction in Gill.
Next, I have never argued that Gill believed that it was ordinary for mentally competent adults to be regenerated or quickened without coming to faith in Christ. This accusation of Garrett is insulting. Gill obviously claims in Romans 10:14 the opposite of this, but he does not preclude that God regenerates apart from the word, by His Spirit alone. The point I've made is that Gill's doctrine of eternal justification is not as systematically consistent with his view of regeneration and effectual calling as it would be if he used what he admits of infants as a paradigm for these doctrines.
Garrett stated:
"I have had to correct Jason more than once on the words "on the bases of," and other similar expressions in the bible and in the writings of Dr. Gill. Those Baptists who have believed in means in being born of God, like Dr. Gill and the Hardshell founding fathers, would never say that "faith" was ever "the basis of" justification, regeneration, or salvation. They did all say that faith was the "means," the way in which justification, regeneration, and salvation, are "received." All were lost who did not "receive" or "accept"the atonement, this wrought out justification and salvation. Gill always stated that faith is like the hand that obtains atonement and justification. No reception, then no justification or salvation."
The view that faith is the "means" of justification is the instrumental view of justification that Gill opposes, which Pink supports in contradiction to Gill:
"Some of the older theologians, when expounding this doctrine, contended for the eternal justification of the elect, affirming that God pronounced them righteous before the foundation of the world, and that their justification was then actual and complete, remaining so throughout their history in time, even during the days of their unregeneracy and unbelief; and that the only difference their faith made was in making manifest God's eternal justification in their consciences."
Gill denied that faith was the means of "receiving" justification, except in a fully subjective sense:
"Faith is not the cause, but an effect of justification; it is not the cause of it in any sense; it is not the moving cause, that is the free grace of God; "Being justified freely by his grace",#Ro 3:24 nor the efficient cause of it; "It is God that justifies", #Ro 8:33 nor the meritorious cause, as some express it; or the matter of it, that is the obedience and blood of Christ, #Ro 5:9,19 or the righteousness of Christ, consisting of his active and passive obedience; nor even the instrumental cause;"
I hope that Garrett is not trying to suggest that both can be true, which would be another Fuller-like absurdity. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Garrett hasn't accepted Fullerism in toto.
Garrett stated:
"Jason keeps wanting to ask, basically, is this - "how much faith (belief) must one have to be initially saved?" And then, "what if this amount of faith decreases? will salvation be lost?" But, he ought rather to be searching the scriptures, and the writings of Dr. Gill, for answers to these questions, for they answer them clearly."
In other words, Garrett cannot answer the logical objection. Instead of supposing something's rotten in the state of Demark - the Denmark of his theology - he would rather embrace seeming contradiction. How can you reason with that? Garrett always digs out the accusation of "Hardshell dependence on logic" whenever he's in trouble. He's begging the question in referring us to the Scripture - he means his interpretation of Scripture! What does Garrett suppose a Systematic Theology is? The logical implications of his interpretations are thrown to the wayside because they are subordinate to his certain interpretations? Garrett would rather give life to epithets rather than venture an intellectual attempt at systematizing the Scripture by reason.
Garrett stated:
"No, Paul always recognized Peter as a "believer." Even when we fall in unbelief, we are still believers, for the falls we have in unbelief, concern not the fundamental propositions of the gospel, but lessor areas of doctrine. It depends on the kind of "disobedience," the kind of "unbelief." Obviously! Peter's kind of unbelief and disobedience was not anything near the kind of unbelief and disobedience in unsaved people, people who are always styled as "heathen" or "unbelievers."
Even when we fall in unbelief, we are still believers. What? When you can embrace logical contradiction, you can believe anything at whim, apparently. What was Peter's unbelief? Was it a lesser doctrine? It was a public disavowal of any knowledge of Jesus Christ! Is there anything more core to the gospel than that?! Paul stated CLEARLY in Romans 10:11, "For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Could Peter deny the gospel any more clearly, if "...with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:10)"? In the moment of Peter's denial of Jesus, his unbelief was the same as any heathen or unbeliever's unbelief that loves his life too much to lose it. I apologize if I come across as intolerant, Brother Garrett.
Garrett stated:
"Garrett was correct about II Thess. 1: 7-9 and showed how Jason does not know the difference between a universal categorical proposition and a limited one. Garrett has also referred to II Thess. 2: 12 where Paul said - "that they ALL might be damned who believed not the truth..." How is that not universal? He also spoke of those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (vs. 11) "
I never claimed that Paul did not have a universal category in mind - my claim has always been that Garrett commits a category error of what that category can possibly be. The "them" obviously refers to the non-elect who know not God and disobey the gospel. How could it refer to the elect who have disobeyed the gospel like Peter? It, therefore, cannot be made to apply to anyone that has ever disobeyed the gospel in any way, as that would include the elect. Garrett's error is in supposing that the "them" includes anyone that has ever been guilty of gospel disobedience. How is it possible to hold that view and believe anyone will go to heaven?
As I've argued, he commit's a category mistake in ascribing gospel disobedience universally in these passages, as it obviously refers to the category of the "them" in 2 Thess. 1:7-9. It is a "universal" category of the "them" and "all" under consideration in these passages.
Garrett stated:
"Jason says that "pervasive unbelief of revelation" is "not taught in the New Testament." But, suppose we deal with him with our own rhetoricals? What do you mean by"pervasive unbelief"? How pervasive can it be, or not be? Is being a heathen or pagan in belief part of the definition of "pervasive unbelief"?"
Pervasive unbelief is a life characterized by gospel disobedience and the attendant suppression of the truth and hatred of God. The Scripture plainly identifies those that have been truly regenerated as being led of the spirit of God (Romans 8:14) and manifestly distinguishable from the children of the devil (1 John 3:10). As to how pervasive unbelief can be in children of God, it can completely ruin their lives. It will have the consequence of death, for he that sows to the flesh shall of the flesh receive corruption - be not deceived, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7,8). King Josiah and Samson's fate would be the ultimate result.
As Gill allows, God can regenerate among the pagans apart from the word. We simply do not know on what scale this has been done, but it is true that God has a people redeemed out of literally every kindred, tongue, and people. At the same time, in an era of the revealed gospel, I find it inconsistent to suppose that God would regenerate men without impressing gospel ministers to attend to their instruction in this life. For, though men under the sound of the gospel may remain obstinate for some time, they have themselves to blame for the chastisement of God, the pagan man waits for the revelation of the sons of God, which is a forlorn affair if he has no man to guide him.
Garrett stated:
"Simple answer! The cognitive ability of John the Baptist, while in his mother's womb, was supernatural, not what was natural! Further, we are not talking about infants being regenerated but who do not die in infancy. We are not talking about someone who was regenerated in infancy and yet grew up into children or adults. We are talking about those who die in infancy, who must have been regenerated, if we believe that any or all of them go to heaven. John Gill, like those who wrote the London Confession of 1689, taught that the regeneration of infants was God's extraordinary way of regenerating men. I also showed that many of them, including Gill, still did not divorce the experience of regeneration from coming to know and believe in Christ, or from repentance, or from the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, affirming that God did this apart from human gospel preachers."
Why does Garrett limit regeneration of elect infants to only those that die in infancy? Does he not argue that John the Baptist was regenerated in his mother's womb? Was not Jacob imbued with the principle of grace in that he wrestled with his brother Esau in the womb, manifesting the manner of two peoples? Garrett ignored my observation that Gill does not make the 'proper object of faith' Jesus Christ, which Gill would make clear if he considered that God preached the gospel directly.
Garrett stated:
"Wrong! He had not excluded infants and this is evident from his use of the word "also" in"also of such persons." Does Gill not say that the mentally incompetent may still be"enabled" by omnipotence to "exercise" faith in Christ and to call upon his name? If you allow that God can do this with the mentally incompetent, then why not with infants?"
Garrett has problems here. Gill plainly stated at the beginning of his commentary on Romans 10:14 that infants were not intended by the text, which excludes them from the preponderance of Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14. Second, the "also" refers to his next point about to whom Romans 10:14 is addressed: those adults outside of special revelation, which he denies is infants again by saying 'not of those that never could hear and speak'! Gill would obviously exclude the mentally incompetent inasmuch as they cannot hear or speak intelligibly anymore than infants!
I hope I have not come across in an uncharitable manner in this posting. Let us make the glory of Christ preeminent, and I have enjoyed the opportunity to debate these issues with Brother Garrett.
Garrett stated:
"On saving faith, Dr. Gill wrote:
"...certain it is that salvation is promised to faith, and connected with it, "He that believes shall be saved", and is what faith issues in; true believers receive "the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls" (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 1:9), and this is the faith that is to be treated of; and next will be considered,
Secondly, God the Son is the object of faith...his miracles, were written by the evangelists, "that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing, they might have life through his name" (John 20:31)...Knowledge of Christ is necessary to the exercise of faith on him, for "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" and if they have not so much as heard of him, they cannot know him, and consequently cannot exercise faith upon him; and "How shall they hear without a preacher" to make him known unto them? (Rom. 10:14)." These words of Dr. Gill uproot Hardshellism! First, he does not define the "faith" that saves as being non-cognitive, as does Jason. He does not even say - "unless Paul is talking about a non-cognitive faith." When Gill thought that two or more interpretations of certain passages were possible, and which he could not say for sure which was the original intent of the writer, he would say it may mean this, or it may mean that, or say it means this, "unless" he means that. But, here Paul gives only one possible interpretation. It is this; The "faith" that saves is the faith that is cognitive, and that cannot be divorced from knowledge. "
I agree that saving faith embraces the knowledge of revelation available - my point is that believers do not perfectly embrace this knowledge at all times. Abraham believed God's promise and Christ's righteousness was imputed to him, but Abraham later scoffed at the means by which God would bring about this promise in Sarah. Abraham still possessed saving faith in the general promise of God, but did not perfectly embrace the promise of God similar to Peter's lack of faith in the entire mission of Jesus.
We are not at liberty to judge what amount or quality of knowledge is necessary for saving faith beyond a general trust in the person of Christ. We cannot judge the heart, afterall, and must allow that individuals can be intellectually confused on the gospel, but be sincere children of God.
Garrett stated:
"Notice that Gill does not say that a certain kind of faith is cognitive and has knowledge, but says "faith," denoting one kind. Faith was never given a Hardshell definition by the new testament writers, and not by Dr. Gill. Hardshells often speak of the faith that is given in regeneration as being non-cognitive and without knowledge. And, they cannot show from scripture how their definition of a non-cognitive and ignorant faith is taught and described. Gill says that faith and faith knowledge are necessary for being saved. Again, it is Hardshellism uprooted. Gill does not say "saving knowledge is only a necessary ingredient to this kind of faith, but is not necessary to another kind of faith.""
Gill plainly divorced the "principle of grace infused by regeneration" from gospel faith here:
"It is also signified by "seed" (1 John 3:9). "Whosoever is born of God—his seed remaineth in him"; which is the principle of grace infused in regeneration; and as seed contains in it virtually, all that after proceeds from it, the blade, stalk, ear, and full corn in the ear; so the first principle of grace implanted in the heart, seminally contains all the grace which afterwards appears, and all the fruits, effects, acts, and exercises of it."
This idea of a "principle of grace" was the non-cognitive element that Gill stated is implanted in infants in his Romans 10:14 commentary. Whether we call this a "principle of grace" or "implanted faith" - perhaps 'faith' is the wrong term to use for this, as it is confusing to use a word that denotes cognitive action - it results in the deposit of some spiritual element that is irreducible to cognitive action. Gill never states that infants exhibit cognitive action or that God imbues them with cognitive powers so they can exercise faith - this is Garrett stretching to find support in Gill for an idea that is only in Garrett's mind. I'll deal with Garrett's comments on Gill's Romans 10:14 commentary in a moment.
Garrett stated:
"So? How is his view on eternal justification a contradiction to his view on regeneration and saving faith? "
Gill plainly claims that faith is not a "causa sine qua non" for justification and, ultimately, eternal salvation, as the case of elect infants shows. It is inconsistent, in a systematic work, for Gill to allow this, and yet claim that it is God's "normal way" to save his people (adults being a minority in comparison to the infants that have died in infancy) by the preaching of the gospel.
Garrett stated:
"Does Gill contradict himself on infants? Perhaps. But, rather than indict him on the charge of being "inconsistent" or "contradictory," I would rather seek to see how he may be interpreted so as not to be thought of as inconsistent. Jason wants to argue this proposition - "since Gill taught that justification did not require faith, therefore he must have believed that regeneration, rebirth, and quickening, likewise do not require faith." But, the proposition is false."
Garrett made me chuckle a bit here. Garrett cannot help but prove that Gill contradicted himself. Garrett has already admitted that Gill taught in his writing on Eternal Justification that infants do not have gospel faith. If Garrett proves, as he is trying to prove, that Gill taught that infants do have gospel faith in Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14, he demonstrates an elementary contradiction in Gill.
Next, I have never argued that Gill believed that it was ordinary for mentally competent adults to be regenerated or quickened without coming to faith in Christ. This accusation of Garrett is insulting. Gill obviously claims in Romans 10:14 the opposite of this, but he does not preclude that God regenerates apart from the word, by His Spirit alone. The point I've made is that Gill's doctrine of eternal justification is not as systematically consistent with his view of regeneration and effectual calling as it would be if he used what he admits of infants as a paradigm for these doctrines.
Garrett stated:
"I have had to correct Jason more than once on the words "on the bases of," and other similar expressions in the bible and in the writings of Dr. Gill. Those Baptists who have believed in means in being born of God, like Dr. Gill and the Hardshell founding fathers, would never say that "faith" was ever "the basis of" justification, regeneration, or salvation. They did all say that faith was the "means," the way in which justification, regeneration, and salvation, are "received." All were lost who did not "receive" or "accept"the atonement, this wrought out justification and salvation. Gill always stated that faith is like the hand that obtains atonement and justification. No reception, then no justification or salvation."
The view that faith is the "means" of justification is the instrumental view of justification that Gill opposes, which Pink supports in contradiction to Gill:
"Some of the older theologians, when expounding this doctrine, contended for the eternal justification of the elect, affirming that God pronounced them righteous before the foundation of the world, and that their justification was then actual and complete, remaining so throughout their history in time, even during the days of their unregeneracy and unbelief; and that the only difference their faith made was in making manifest God's eternal justification in their consciences."
Gill denied that faith was the means of "receiving" justification, except in a fully subjective sense:
"Faith is not the cause, but an effect of justification; it is not the cause of it in any sense; it is not the moving cause, that is the free grace of God; "Being justified freely by his grace",#Ro 3:24 nor the efficient cause of it; "It is God that justifies", #Ro 8:33 nor the meritorious cause, as some express it; or the matter of it, that is the obedience and blood of Christ, #Ro 5:9,19 or the righteousness of Christ, consisting of his active and passive obedience; nor even the instrumental cause;"
I hope that Garrett is not trying to suggest that both can be true, which would be another Fuller-like absurdity. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Garrett hasn't accepted Fullerism in toto.
Garrett stated:
"Jason keeps wanting to ask, basically, is this - "how much faith (belief) must one have to be initially saved?" And then, "what if this amount of faith decreases? will salvation be lost?" But, he ought rather to be searching the scriptures, and the writings of Dr. Gill, for answers to these questions, for they answer them clearly."
In other words, Garrett cannot answer the logical objection. Instead of supposing something's rotten in the state of Demark - the Denmark of his theology - he would rather embrace seeming contradiction. How can you reason with that? Garrett always digs out the accusation of "Hardshell dependence on logic" whenever he's in trouble. He's begging the question in referring us to the Scripture - he means his interpretation of Scripture! What does Garrett suppose a Systematic Theology is? The logical implications of his interpretations are thrown to the wayside because they are subordinate to his certain interpretations? Garrett would rather give life to epithets rather than venture an intellectual attempt at systematizing the Scripture by reason.
Garrett stated:
"No, Paul always recognized Peter as a "believer." Even when we fall in unbelief, we are still believers, for the falls we have in unbelief, concern not the fundamental propositions of the gospel, but lessor areas of doctrine. It depends on the kind of "disobedience," the kind of "unbelief." Obviously! Peter's kind of unbelief and disobedience was not anything near the kind of unbelief and disobedience in unsaved people, people who are always styled as "heathen" or "unbelievers."
Even when we fall in unbelief, we are still believers. What? When you can embrace logical contradiction, you can believe anything at whim, apparently. What was Peter's unbelief? Was it a lesser doctrine? It was a public disavowal of any knowledge of Jesus Christ! Is there anything more core to the gospel than that?! Paul stated CLEARLY in Romans 10:11, "For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Could Peter deny the gospel any more clearly, if "...with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:10)"? In the moment of Peter's denial of Jesus, his unbelief was the same as any heathen or unbeliever's unbelief that loves his life too much to lose it. I apologize if I come across as intolerant, Brother Garrett.
Garrett stated:
"Garrett was correct about II Thess. 1: 7-9 and showed how Jason does not know the difference between a universal categorical proposition and a limited one. Garrett has also referred to II Thess. 2: 12 where Paul said - "that they ALL might be damned who believed not the truth..." How is that not universal? He also spoke of those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (vs. 11) "
I never claimed that Paul did not have a universal category in mind - my claim has always been that Garrett commits a category error of what that category can possibly be. The "them" obviously refers to the non-elect who know not God and disobey the gospel. How could it refer to the elect who have disobeyed the gospel like Peter? It, therefore, cannot be made to apply to anyone that has ever disobeyed the gospel in any way, as that would include the elect. Garrett's error is in supposing that the "them" includes anyone that has ever been guilty of gospel disobedience. How is it possible to hold that view and believe anyone will go to heaven?
As I've argued, he commit's a category mistake in ascribing gospel disobedience universally in these passages, as it obviously refers to the category of the "them" in 2 Thess. 1:7-9. It is a "universal" category of the "them" and "all" under consideration in these passages.
Garrett stated:
"Jason says that "pervasive unbelief of revelation" is "not taught in the New Testament." But, suppose we deal with him with our own rhetoricals? What do you mean by"pervasive unbelief"? How pervasive can it be, or not be? Is being a heathen or pagan in belief part of the definition of "pervasive unbelief"?"
Pervasive unbelief is a life characterized by gospel disobedience and the attendant suppression of the truth and hatred of God. The Scripture plainly identifies those that have been truly regenerated as being led of the spirit of God (Romans 8:14) and manifestly distinguishable from the children of the devil (1 John 3:10). As to how pervasive unbelief can be in children of God, it can completely ruin their lives. It will have the consequence of death, for he that sows to the flesh shall of the flesh receive corruption - be not deceived, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7,8). King Josiah and Samson's fate would be the ultimate result.
As Gill allows, God can regenerate among the pagans apart from the word. We simply do not know on what scale this has been done, but it is true that God has a people redeemed out of literally every kindred, tongue, and people. At the same time, in an era of the revealed gospel, I find it inconsistent to suppose that God would regenerate men without impressing gospel ministers to attend to their instruction in this life. For, though men under the sound of the gospel may remain obstinate for some time, they have themselves to blame for the chastisement of God, the pagan man waits for the revelation of the sons of God, which is a forlorn affair if he has no man to guide him.
Garrett stated:
"Simple answer! The cognitive ability of John the Baptist, while in his mother's womb, was supernatural, not what was natural! Further, we are not talking about infants being regenerated but who do not die in infancy. We are not talking about someone who was regenerated in infancy and yet grew up into children or adults. We are talking about those who die in infancy, who must have been regenerated, if we believe that any or all of them go to heaven. John Gill, like those who wrote the London Confession of 1689, taught that the regeneration of infants was God's extraordinary way of regenerating men. I also showed that many of them, including Gill, still did not divorce the experience of regeneration from coming to know and believe in Christ, or from repentance, or from the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, affirming that God did this apart from human gospel preachers."
Why does Garrett limit regeneration of elect infants to only those that die in infancy? Does he not argue that John the Baptist was regenerated in his mother's womb? Was not Jacob imbued with the principle of grace in that he wrestled with his brother Esau in the womb, manifesting the manner of two peoples? Garrett ignored my observation that Gill does not make the 'proper object of faith' Jesus Christ, which Gill would make clear if he considered that God preached the gospel directly.
Garrett stated:
"Wrong! He had not excluded infants and this is evident from his use of the word "also" in"also of such persons." Does Gill not say that the mentally incompetent may still be"enabled" by omnipotence to "exercise" faith in Christ and to call upon his name? If you allow that God can do this with the mentally incompetent, then why not with infants?"
Garrett has problems here. Gill plainly stated at the beginning of his commentary on Romans 10:14 that infants were not intended by the text, which excludes them from the preponderance of Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14. Second, the "also" refers to his next point about to whom Romans 10:14 is addressed: those adults outside of special revelation, which he denies is infants again by saying 'not of those that never could hear and speak'! Gill would obviously exclude the mentally incompetent inasmuch as they cannot hear or speak intelligibly anymore than infants!
I hope I have not come across in an uncharitable manner in this posting. Let us make the glory of Christ preeminent, and I have enjoyed the opportunity to debate these issues with Brother Garrett.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)