Steven Garrett has allowed his passion to overrule reason in regard to his opposition to the Primitive Baptists. I have stated in my first post that Garrett believes that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration was contrived by them in the context of the anti-mission split among the Baptists in 1832.
Garrett quotes Bob Ross:
"This argumentation takes us back to one of the founding fathers of the PB denomination, to Elder Gilbert Beebe. Wrote Bob Ross:
"Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881), editor of the Signs of the Times magazine, the foremost Anti-mission periodical following the 1832 split, was perhaps the first one -- at least, one of the first -- to propagate this new theory of "direct speaking" regeneration. He says: "The word of the Lord, which is Spirit, and which is life, which liveth and abideth forever, is that by which regeneration is affected; not MERELY by the Scriptures in their LETTER, not reading or preaching them, but the words which Jesus himself SPEAKS to the individual persons who are made to hear and live." [Compilation of Editorial Articles, Vol. IV, pages 21, 22]. This theory gives precedence of power to the spoken words of Christ, which He supposedly speaks directly to the individual. Notice that the "speaking," according to Beebe, PRECEDES the "hearing" and the "life." This would mean that Christ speaks to the "dead alien sinner" BEFORE the sinner is "alive." Therefore, the Word of Christ is addressed to the "dead," yet the Hardshells object to the Baptist position that the Gospel, or Word, is to be preached to the "dead," and is accompanied by the Holy Spirit in pursuance of God's sovereign purpose in effectual calling." (History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists, chapter 6)
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
Brother Ross responded well to this "hybrid" and "novel" idea."
The idea that immediate regeneration was a "novel" doctrine is historical fiction. Again, Garrett seems to confuse opposition to the doctrine of immediate regeneration with opposition to a separaton of immediate regeneration from the gospel as preached by men. Garrett's true objection seems to be the latter. It is a historical fact that many Puritan Divines believed that the actual act of regeneration was not mediated through the preached word, e.g. Samuel Hopkins. Many modern Reformed Theologians take this view as well, like R.C. Sproul. The idea that this doctrine originated in 1832 is preposterous. What Garrett must mean is that the total separation of the preached gospel from the immediate act of regeneration was/is a Primitive Baptist contrivance.
However, to even attribute this to Beebe seems inaccurate, as even by Garrett's admission in various blogs John Gill is inconsistent in portraying the preached gospel as a means of the Spirit in regeneration. Obviously, for Gill to hedge on this issue speaks to an ongoing climate within Christendom way before Beebe that was to some degree uncertain about gospel instrumentality in regeneration. The idea that Baptist Theologians and Puritan Divines before Beebe were all consistently on the same page about gospel instrumentality in regeneration oversteps what can be rationally established; indeed, to make such a generalization of history attests to an irrational fervor that marks a personal vendetta.
The unscriptural application of the doctrine of immediate regeneration among many modern Primitive Baptists is when they make gospel rejection the norm for regenerate children of God. This rejection of the gospel certainly does not follow logically from the simple idea that regeneration precedes gospel faith. An underlying universalism or quasi-universalism is truly to be blamed. Indeed, the Scripture provides ample proof that the preaching of the cross is the power of God to them that are saved (1 Cor. 1:18). It is the nature of those that are regenerate to embrace in faith the revelation available to them. Gospel rejection is a fruit of the eternally damned (Mark 16:16, 2 Thes. 1:7-9).
So it is vain to oppose the ridiculous conclusions of some modern Primitive Baptists by an attack on the doctrine of immediate regeneration, as the real culprit is an underlying universalism.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Primitive Baptists Contra Stephen Garrett
The impetus of this blog was finding the blog of Stephen Garrett in which, among other things, he has tasked himself with revealing to the world that the Primitive Baptist denomination is a cult.
I want to state at the outset that many of Stephen Garrett's criticisms of present day Primitive Baptists are not without warrant. Particularly with reference to the view that many Primitive Baptists hold today that most of the world is in fact comprised of regenerate children of God, which they erroneously affirm from texts of Scripture that state that the family of God is a numerous seed. Such texts are not in a context of a definite contrast to the damned, and, consequently, it simply does not follow that there will be more people in heaven than hell, let alone that most now living are of the redeemed.
First, I want to point out that Mr. Garrett claims that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration is unbiblical. He believes that the regenerating Spirit of God is ordinarily mediated through the preached word. He has claimed that Primitive Baptists contrived this doctrine in the context of the division among the Baptists in 1832.
Mr. Garrett states:
"Hardshells attempt to make the Calvinistic doctrine of effectual calling, wherein the call is divided into "inward" and "outward," into a Hardshell paradigm. The divines in effectual calling made such a distinction because they realized that the word alone regenerates no one. It takes the personal operation of the Holy Spirit, his superlative power, to make the external call of the gospel effectual. Sometimes they spoke of this as an immediate calling of the Spirit speaking to the heart and conscience. But, they never completely divorced the external and general calling of the Spirit, through the gospel's proclamation, but conjoined the two, as in the London Confession, "called by his Word and Spirit.""
Mr. Garrett objects to completely divorcing the operation of the Spirit in regeneration from the outward preached gospel, but note that he does make a distinction. The actual act of regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit of God alone. Logically, then, the act of regeneration is immediate when God recreates the dead, alien sinner, which gives them the spiritual discernment to recognize their need of a saviour. There is nothing unbiblical about insisting that regeneration precedes gospel acceptance and a profession of faith. His central objection to Old Baptists is that they do not believe that the act of regeneration is always or ordinarily accompanied by the gospel as preached by men, not that the gospel is the means of regeneration per se, as in without the Spirit, or in supremacy to the Spirit.
The question here is whether we can deduce from Scripture that regeneration always or even ordinarily occurs in the context of gospel preaching. Garrett offers what he considers three proof texts of his view that gospel preaching is the ordinary means by which men are regenerated. I say "means" in the sense that it accompanies the act of regeneration, which even he makes distinct from preaching.
He cites 1 Corinthians 4:15, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 as proof of his view. The general problem of accepting these texts as proof texts of his view is that even if we conceded that the texts refer to regeneration being performed by the preached gospel, how would this necessarily imply his contention that regeneration always occurs thusly? That inference would simply not follow logically from these texts.
No Primitive Baptist would deny that it has been the case that individuals under the sound of the preached gospel were regenerated and embraced and professed faith in Jesus Christ, as in Acts 13:48. However, such instances do not prove that it is always or normally so in reference to those deprived of outward revelation whether by geography or intellectual capacity.
What the texts Mr. Garrett cites and Acts 13:48 do show is that it is the nature of the truly regenerate to respond to the gospel in faith, if they are under the sound of it. It is inconsistent to suppose that a regenerate son would totally reject the gospel, as the same Spirit that testifies within them that they are the children of God would testify of the truth of the gospel (Romans 8:16).
I will openly state that the views of many modern Primitive Baptists in regard to how they apply a distinction of sonship and discipleship in Scripture is unwarranted. This is not to say that I believe any distinction between sonship and discipleship is unwarranted. It seems to me that Mr. Garrett commits the slippery slope fallacy of reasoning to suppose that distinguishing sonship from discipleship results in the unscriptural view that most mentally competent, mature adults now living that openly reject the gospel are going to heaven as ignorant sons.
The gospel of John 3:8 is a key text to examine, as it appears to undermine Mr. Garrett's assertion that regeneration ordinarily occurs in the context of gospel preaching. Seen as a continuation of verse 7, verse 8 presumes to explain the mechanism of regeneration in the context of Nicodemus' shock at the concept. If the model of regeneration in the Scripture is as Mr. Garrett supposes, you would expect the text to allude to belief in the teachings of Jesus, or, perhaps, even belief in the dialogue up until this point in the text. This dialogue appears to stem from Nicodemus' attempt to draw spiritually close to Christ through natural reasons, as Nicodemus reasoned Christ's authoritative origin by the miracles of Christ (vs. 2).
An obvious teaching from 3:8 about the new birth is that it is not effected by any means or by any cause that we could observe. This naturally runs afoul of the idea that regeneration occurs only or even ordinarily through gospel preaching, as this would be an obvious cause. The text proves that the only relevant cause of the new birth is the Spirit of God, as the gospel as preached by men would be moot as far as it's effect on dead men. It suggests that men cannot readily ascribe a place or cause for the working of the Spirit, which would seem to indicate that insisting that the work of the spirit be necessarily linked to the gospel as preached by men would be wrong-headed
I want to state at the outset that many of Stephen Garrett's criticisms of present day Primitive Baptists are not without warrant. Particularly with reference to the view that many Primitive Baptists hold today that most of the world is in fact comprised of regenerate children of God, which they erroneously affirm from texts of Scripture that state that the family of God is a numerous seed. Such texts are not in a context of a definite contrast to the damned, and, consequently, it simply does not follow that there will be more people in heaven than hell, let alone that most now living are of the redeemed.
First, I want to point out that Mr. Garrett claims that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration is unbiblical. He believes that the regenerating Spirit of God is ordinarily mediated through the preached word. He has claimed that Primitive Baptists contrived this doctrine in the context of the division among the Baptists in 1832.
Mr. Garrett states:
"Hardshells attempt to make the Calvinistic doctrine of effectual calling, wherein the call is divided into "inward" and "outward," into a Hardshell paradigm. The divines in effectual calling made such a distinction because they realized that the word alone regenerates no one. It takes the personal operation of the Holy Spirit, his superlative power, to make the external call of the gospel effectual. Sometimes they spoke of this as an immediate calling of the Spirit speaking to the heart and conscience. But, they never completely divorced the external and general calling of the Spirit, through the gospel's proclamation, but conjoined the two, as in the London Confession, "called by his Word and Spirit.""
Mr. Garrett objects to completely divorcing the operation of the Spirit in regeneration from the outward preached gospel, but note that he does make a distinction. The actual act of regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit of God alone. Logically, then, the act of regeneration is immediate when God recreates the dead, alien sinner, which gives them the spiritual discernment to recognize their need of a saviour. There is nothing unbiblical about insisting that regeneration precedes gospel acceptance and a profession of faith. His central objection to Old Baptists is that they do not believe that the act of regeneration is always or ordinarily accompanied by the gospel as preached by men, not that the gospel is the means of regeneration per se, as in without the Spirit, or in supremacy to the Spirit.
The question here is whether we can deduce from Scripture that regeneration always or even ordinarily occurs in the context of gospel preaching. Garrett offers what he considers three proof texts of his view that gospel preaching is the ordinary means by which men are regenerated. I say "means" in the sense that it accompanies the act of regeneration, which even he makes distinct from preaching.
He cites 1 Corinthians 4:15, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 as proof of his view. The general problem of accepting these texts as proof texts of his view is that even if we conceded that the texts refer to regeneration being performed by the preached gospel, how would this necessarily imply his contention that regeneration always occurs thusly? That inference would simply not follow logically from these texts.
No Primitive Baptist would deny that it has been the case that individuals under the sound of the preached gospel were regenerated and embraced and professed faith in Jesus Christ, as in Acts 13:48. However, such instances do not prove that it is always or normally so in reference to those deprived of outward revelation whether by geography or intellectual capacity.
What the texts Mr. Garrett cites and Acts 13:48 do show is that it is the nature of the truly regenerate to respond to the gospel in faith, if they are under the sound of it. It is inconsistent to suppose that a regenerate son would totally reject the gospel, as the same Spirit that testifies within them that they are the children of God would testify of the truth of the gospel (Romans 8:16).
I will openly state that the views of many modern Primitive Baptists in regard to how they apply a distinction of sonship and discipleship in Scripture is unwarranted. This is not to say that I believe any distinction between sonship and discipleship is unwarranted. It seems to me that Mr. Garrett commits the slippery slope fallacy of reasoning to suppose that distinguishing sonship from discipleship results in the unscriptural view that most mentally competent, mature adults now living that openly reject the gospel are going to heaven as ignorant sons.
The gospel of John 3:8 is a key text to examine, as it appears to undermine Mr. Garrett's assertion that regeneration ordinarily occurs in the context of gospel preaching. Seen as a continuation of verse 7, verse 8 presumes to explain the mechanism of regeneration in the context of Nicodemus' shock at the concept. If the model of regeneration in the Scripture is as Mr. Garrett supposes, you would expect the text to allude to belief in the teachings of Jesus, or, perhaps, even belief in the dialogue up until this point in the text. This dialogue appears to stem from Nicodemus' attempt to draw spiritually close to Christ through natural reasons, as Nicodemus reasoned Christ's authoritative origin by the miracles of Christ (vs. 2).
An obvious teaching from 3:8 about the new birth is that it is not effected by any means or by any cause that we could observe. This naturally runs afoul of the idea that regeneration occurs only or even ordinarily through gospel preaching, as this would be an obvious cause. The text proves that the only relevant cause of the new birth is the Spirit of God, as the gospel as preached by men would be moot as far as it's effect on dead men. It suggests that men cannot readily ascribe a place or cause for the working of the Spirit, which would seem to indicate that insisting that the work of the spirit be necessarily linked to the gospel as preached by men would be wrong-headed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)