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
1 Corinthians 4:15, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 So if these verses do indeed teach that regeneration occurs by the preached gospel, it would seem to me, by your own tradition of "silence" in the scriptures that this would be proof of such. For example, PB's dont use instrumentation because the new testament doesnt explicitly command the use of them, or even mention their use. So you take this to mean that the scriptures prohibit their use, by its silence. If you have these 3 verses which "seem" to say that regeneration occurs by gospel preaching, and the scriptures are silent about any other way, then you must by your own methodology, conclude that this is the way the scriptures teach. If the bible affirms something, then it must be true. It doesnt need to explicitly deny that there are other ways. The scriptures dont need to deny a negative when a positive has been affirmed. If by silence you claim others are regenerated without the preached gospel, then you must also accept that by "silence" instrumentation may be is "another tune" just as you define "other sheep."
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some truth to this argument. I would like to see the blog authors reply. It seems to me that the bible associates believing the gospel with regeneration while at the same time affirming that one will never believe the gospel unless empowered by the HOLY Spirit. In my estimation regeneration happens under the sovereign hand of God as a sinner repents and believes because God,s Spirit is. simultaniously operating.
DeleteThis would equate to "through" means in distinction to "by" means. I would also add that it happens that way every time. No regeneration apart from belief and repentance.The bible will not substantiate that but rather clearly denies it. Separating belief and repentance from regeneration is bogus. Separating belief and repentance from grace is also bogus. P.b.'s tend to do both. The first in regard to eternal salvation and the second in regard to time salvation.
What is your understanding of the 13 connected verses following John 3:8?
DeleteMr. Caman171, I am unsure what you mean about a "tradition of silence". I have never argued for such a tradition. The point is, the cited texts are not grounds for insisting that regeneration MUST or, even, "ordinarily" happens with the preached word.
DeleteMr Barrick, I hope you see this, I didnt realize you had asked a question. Concerning the 13 verses following John 3:8. In verse 10 Jesus is astonished that Nicodemus "does not understand" which implies that lost persons are indeed capable of understanding. Again, Jesus affirms the positive by stating "whoever believes" is saved, and "whoever does not believe" is condemned. When Scripture gives both the positive and negative side of the coin, then the value of the coin is indisputable. There is no salvation without belief, this is clear. I would also add that the author says "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." So God has the power to regenerate a man without hearing the Gospel, but seemingly does not have the power to provide the birth certificate at the time of birth? I must disagree. Id He has the power to give new birth, then he will also provide the "womb" thru which the new life is born, and that would be the preached Word. It is only the preached Word that causes a sinner to "die" in order that he might live. Only the dying grasp for new life, and until they see that they are dead, they have no desire to live.
ReplyDelete