Brother Garrett's original blog post can be found here: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/jason-on-conversion.html
I have worked about 60 hours this past week, so I could not respond to Brother Garrett as well as I would have liked. I want to flesh out my original rebuttal as well as rebut Brother Garrett's response to my original short posting. The initial part of this post will contain what I originally wrote, but I will interject Brother Garrett's responses to it, rebut it, and then rebut more thoroughly his original blog post (linked above).
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason's "difficulty" lies in his not being able to place any "volition" in the work of regeneration. In receiving gospel truth he sees cognition, faith, and volition, but he cannot accept any volition, revelation, or faith in the experience of regeneration. But, that is his problem, not a problem with the bible writers. Also, traditionally, Hardshells have interpreted the statement - "thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" as alluding to what happens in regeneration. So, it seems as though they allow, at times, for volition to be an aspect of regeneration. They also show inconsistency in this area because they will often interpret verses dealing with Jesus being "revealed" to a person as talking about regeneration or an efficacious calling. Let us ask Jason - "do you interpret all passages dealing with revelation of Christ to a sinner as unconnected with regeneration?""
The fact that some Primitive Baptists interpret certain Scriptures dealing with obedience in terms of the regeneration experience is a de facto observation of Brother Garrett, having spent time among the Primitive Baptists. I have no doubt that you can find inconsistencies in the beliefs of many individuals. What his observations reveal is that some modern Primitive Baptists would rather place certain texts in a context of regeneration than admit that some degree of gospel conversion is the natural extension of sonship in our gospel era, which I believe can be inferred from 2 Cor. 4:6 and Hebrews 5:9.
The failure to acknowledge that the Scripture plainly reveals that discipleship is consistent with sonship in this gospel era, and that some degree of discipleship is the natural consequence of sonship under the sound of the gospel is representative where some Primitive Baptists have departed from the emphases of prior years. If Brother Garrett would limit his remarks to this as I have stated it, I should have no quarrel with him.
To what I stated above, Brother Garrett responded on July 12:
"Jason is taking a view that most Hardshells will not accept, in his divorcing "obedience" from the experience of regeneration. Most Hardshells say that the dead sinner obeys the call to life when the Lord speaks to him in the work of regeneration. They typically interpret "my sheep hear (obey) my voice" as talking about the experience of regeneration. They typically, and correctly, say that this obedience is passive obedience, effectual, the kind of obedience Lazarus rendered when he was ordered to come forth from the dead."
It is clear that John 10:27 is not referring to regeneration. This text occurs in a polemical encounter between Christ and Jewish leaders in Solomon's porch. Jesus contrasts the "hearing" of the sheep in verse 27 to the unbelief of the Jewish leaders addressed in the two preceding verses. It is not the life-giving voice of the Son of God that the Jewish leaders fail to hear, for, like Lazarus, they would have been resurrected to new life effectually and immediately if they were addressed thusly.
It is perfectly evident from the text that it is the message and ministry of Jesus the Jewish leaders failed to believe, as Jesus refers to His earthly ministry that the evil Jews witnesseed (vs. 25). This unbelief in the words and teaching of Christ marked the Jewish leaders as unregenerate men, just as belief in the words and teaching of Christ mark those that are born again. This passage clearly presupposes that being born again is a necessary context for belief in the gospel. It presupposes a distinction between sonship and discipleship. The main point of Christ is that belief and trust in Christ (vs. 24) - the gospel - is the nature of sheep - those that have been regenerated.
I grant that some present Primitive Baptists do not view the passage as I have exegeted it; however, I think I have proven that they must. Evidently, Brother Garrett agrees with them that John 10:27 refers to a "passive obedience" in regeneration, which surprises me because it is an elementary deduction from the context of this passage that it cannot - unless one is out to prove that the life-giving voice of Jesus Christ in regeneration is resistible. It is clear from the context that if verse 27 refers to the voice of Christ in regeneration, it is the same voice which told the Jewish leaders that He was the Christ ineffectually in verse 25.
As touching this idea of "passive obedience" in regeneration, this concept is oxymoronic. Lazarus was not obedient, not even "passively", in the moment of creation ex nihilo in coming from death to life. It could be said that Lazarus was obedient in coming forth from the tomb, but this assumes he came out of his own power (as he was fully bound); even so, if he did come out of the tomb by his own power, it would manifestly have been after he was made alive. This view is contradictory and an attempt by some Primitive Baptists today to escape the implications of the New Testament that it is the nature of truly regenerate individuals under the sound of the gospel to respond in faith.
Brother Garrett likes this view as well as he says, "They (PB's) typically, and correctly, say that this obedience is passive obedience, effectual, the kind of obedience Lazarus rendered when he was ordered to come forth from the dead." Notice how Garrett confounds obedience, which presupposes uncoerced volition, and an effectual call of God, which regenerates apart from the will of man. Garrett would have us believe that two mutually exclusive categories co-exist, so that he can render synonymous what the Scripture divide: sonship from discipleship. But he must swallow an evident contradiction: that which is effectually worked by God as a cause cannot be volitionally willed by man as the same cause. Perhaps I should mock him like he has me throughout his rebuttals.
Brother Garrett stated on July 12th:
"II Cor. 4: 6 and Hebrews 5: 9 only say that some of God's born again people will believe in Jesus and obey the gospel? Again, Jason needs to deal with the passages I brought up that say that ALL who reject faith in Jesus are eternally doomed. Why has he not responded to my proofs on this?"
I have not responded to Brother Garrett's "proofs" because I have not gotten to that part of his writing. It is quite easy to rebut Brother Garrett because he claims "proof" as easily as people in the flower of their youth claim love. There is no reason to suppose that 2 Thess. 1:7-9 "proves" that every single person who seems to have rejected Christ and disobeyed the gospel in any instance is invariably damned. Any sin is disobedience to the gospel. Did not Peter reject Christ? What of 2 Timothy 2:12,13, "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself."
It is plain that qualifications are in order before we can simply embrace that it is categorically true that "ALL who reject faith in Jesus are eternally doomed". It seems clear that Garrett has committed a category mistake in ascribing damnation to all who disobey the gospel; if it is maximally true that all who disobey the gospel are damned no one would be saved. The fact is, in some sense, the elect are saved in spite of themselves, as even after regeneration they need the perfecting influence of the Spirit in sanctification. The only way to understand the text is as a maxim, not an absolute rule that presumes omniscience. He presumes that our human perspective has the epistemic vantage point of God. You cannot surmise qualifications from the text; therefore, logically, more than a general statement of what is characteristic of the damned should not be advocated.
This attests to Garrett's general erroneous exegetical thought process in claiming as indubitable what is less than clear. It is becoming a man of letters to be less rhetorical; it is a shame that his study of Philosophy, a discipline I have training in as well, fuels a spirit of sophistry rather than a true love of wisdom. As lovers of truth we serve it, which is apropos of Christianity.
Brother Garrett went on to say on July 12:
"It is interesting how Jason continues to confess that Hardshells are inconsistent in how they preach the experience of regeneration. I find this ironic because he argued that the Hardshell controversy created "clarity" on the subject, and that the Hardshells are the beneficiaries of that new found "clarity." If they are so clear on the subject, why all the inconsistencies and contradictions?"
I said doctrinal division always creates clarity in the positions of those dividing. I have not argued that every single PB member has preserved this clarity with the mental precision of Lemuel Potter. While present PB's do have clarity on the subject of immediate regeneration, it is sometimes scripturally misapplied to justify universalism or a kind of universalism, as if the Scripture implies that in the present gospel era sons typically reject the gospel because the Bible teaches a distinction between sonship and discipleship. Universalism is the real problem, not teaching on immediate regeneration or conditional time salvation.
Brother Garrett stated (in the linked blog post above):
"Jason will not accept the idea that the begetting and the salvation of these verses are talking about salvation in the proper sense of the term..."
Brother Garrett has misunderstood my position. In order to be "firstfruits of his creatures", the early disciples must have accepted the engrafted Logos (by which they were born again in verse 18), which accompanies the continuing work of sanctification unto glorification. The volitional aspect of verse 18 is contained in the designation of these early believers as firstfruits. This is the manner in which verse 18 and 21 indicate that conversion to the gospel and accepting the Logos that has previously been engrafted in regeneration is the natural reaction of sons.
Brother Garrett responded to this on July 12th:
"To become the "first fruit of his creatures" involves actual creation! It means to become his creatures, new creatures, his children. The use of "firstfruits" does not negate the fact that the apostle affirms that God has willed that we be "begotten" and this is all the same as being newly created. Certainly the first converts to Christ are firstfruits. Being born again and created in Christ is "with the word of truth." God ordained that some become spiritual "creatures," some before others."
I never denied that the concept of "firstfruits of his creatures" entailed regeneration, but it also implies a public and evident image of such, as the open, avowed, and professed followers of Christ we know the early disciples of Christ to have been. It especially implies this when you define "creature" as the new creature of 2 Cor. 5:17 - individuals regenerated, but not yet converted who, "waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God (Romans 8:19)." Now, I know Brother Garrett will not likely concede this definition of "creature" in this text, but it seems from Romans 8:21 that unless a person wants to believe that all men will be eternally saved, the word "creature" in that passage must refer to a class of regenerate individuals that are earnestly expecting the revelation of gospel ministers. Since both James and Paul use the term 'firstfruits' in these passages it is reasonable to interpret them alike.
I continued to state in the original version of this post:
"I was attempting to show in my original posting of, "Gospel Conversion", that even in Brother Garrett's system of understanding these texts, he would have to infer a volitional context of gospel conversion to escape Arminianism by James 1:21. Evidently he escapes Arminianism in James 1:21 by claiming that an effectual call of God by the Spirit determines that sons accept the preached gospel."
To which Brother Garrett responded on July 12th:
"I do infer a volitional context in those verses. How could I not? Faith involves a recognition and an act of the mind and will. But, I do not divorce the activity of the heart and mind in the work of regeneration. In fact, in scripture, regeneration is often defined in terms of activity! Is not coming to life an activity on the part of the dead one? Does God not promise that he will cause a certain activity of heart, mind, conscience, and affections, in his elect? Did we not look at those new covenant promises and see how the heart, mind, and understanding were the objects of God's regenerating work?"
What a curious question he asks, "Is not coming to life an activity on the part of the dead one?", right next to, "Does God not promise that he will cause a certain activity of heart, mind, conscience, and affections, in his elect?" Regeneration is never shown in the Scripture to be a process, so activity in relation to it on the part of man is precluded. Notice the contradiction he makes, which seems to be a theme for Garrett, if "coming to life" is an activity caused by God in the latter statement, how can it possibly be "an activity on the part of the dead one"? His "moderate Calvinism" only exists by embracing contradiction. He has to embrace this farce because he will not bend to the superior logical alternative that regeneration precedes faith and repentance, which is clearly implied all over the Bible, as in John 10:25-27.
Brother Garrett goes on to claim that I espouse Arminianism in James 1:21 in supposing that accepting the engrafted Logos is contingent on the will of man. This is false because accepting the engrafted Logos in this text is in a context of gospel conversion in which the regenerated man (engrafted is in the past tense) wills in synergy with the influence of the Spirit in a process of progressive sanctification unto glorification, which presupposes regeneration. It is Brother Garrett who insists that James 1:21 refers to a "process" of regeneration in which the contradictory melding of God's effectual call and man's free will is supposedly both present and preserved. It is Garrett's contradictory embrace of both Calvinism and Arminianism that is erroneous.
I was certainly not advocating that regeneration is primarily in view in James 1:21. What I argued is that for Garrett, who believes regeneration is primarily in view in this text, he is forced to concede an Arminian view of free will, which he seems to affirm as co-existent with the effectual call of God. However, this is a blatant contradiction as to the cause of regeneration.
As to his quotations of Clark, this has no bearing on this discussion as I have not argued that evangelism ought to be performed on the basis of man's estimation of the spiritual state of those under the sound of the gospel. We do not have epistemic access to make such judgments so evangelism ought to be indiscriminate.
My remaining rebuttal is addressed to Brother Garrett's remarks contained at the link to his blog post at the top of this post.
Brother Garrett asked:
"Let us ask Jason - "do you interpret all passages dealing with revelation of Christ to a sinner as unconnected with regeneration?"
They are not unconnected with regeneration in the sense that in this gospel era since the New Testament the revelation of the gospel elucidates the fundmental trust in God imparted in the new birth, so such revelation always presupposes regeneration, showing that gospel revelation is fully consistent and the natural extension of sonship.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason is inconsistent here, for his Hardshell brothers have traditionally interpreted Phil. 2: 13 - "it is God who works in you to will (choose)" - as denoting a sovereign work of God whereby sinners are regenerated. Is regeneration not a "receiving" of Christ and the Spirit? If one can "receive" Christ and the Spirit irresistibly, by sovereign grace and power, why can they not also "receive" the gospel in the same manner? Is conversion not the work of God as is regeneration? Jason said - "since one could refuse to receive the engrafted word." Yes, one not only "could," but actually do refuse to receive the engrafted word and are not saved because of it. But, the elect are worked upon with infinite power and this ensures their acceptance of the word."
Brother Garrett is incorrect. If Primitive Baptist individuals have said that Phil. 2:13 refers to regeneration, they are incorrect. Phil. 2:13 obviously presumes a context of progressive sanctification, as in verse 12 the addressed individuals are already in the habit of obeying the gospel; Paul exhorts them to work out their salvation, which presumes a saved state. Sanctification is a synergistic process in which the regenerated will of man works in concert with the spirit to conform a man to the image of Christ. This process is resistible, as Paul makes clear in 1 Thess. 5:19, "Quench not the Spirit."
Notice how Garrett's understanding of James 1:21 makes the volitional nature of the text illusory. Those that end up damned refuse the gospel, as they were not effectually worked on by God, and the elect are irresistibly drawn to accept the gospel. Garrett fails to uphold his own hermeneutical standard of embracing the "obvious" meaning of a text, which, in this case, ought to lead him to embrace Arminianism, or lead him to the view I have defended of gospel conversion to that work already begun in the regenerate at regeneration (Phil. 1:6), which the gospel facilitates. The Logos was already engrafted at regeneration per verse 18, but the regenerate strive to apprehend that which they are apprehended of in Christ Jesus by sanctification and gospel conversion (Phil. 3).
Brother Garrett stated:
"It is as Paul wrote when he said:
"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 4, 5)
Gill and the true Old Baptists interpreted this verse as denoting regeneration and the manner in which it is affected. But, let us suppose it only deals with an optional conversion experience, to a "time salvation," do the above words not make use of language that denotes an "effectual calling" nonetheless?"
It denotes the utter inconsistency of affirming sonship without discipleship for those sons under the sound of the gospel, but to say that effectual calling extends to discipleship makes it difficult to understand how Peter could deny Christ or for serious disobedience in the children of God. David and Samson had grievous sins that make it difficult to harmonize to an irresistable grace in the lives of children of God.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Also, consider Ephesians 1: 19, 20:
"...And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places..."
This verse has typically been used by Calvinists, including Hardshells, to denote that regeneration was effectual and irresistible. But, how does Paul describe this efficacious work? Does he not call regeneration the work of being made a "believer"? How is one made a believer? Is it not through the gospel preached, as Paul affirmed in Romans 10? But, it is not the sovereign work of God, in regeneration, to deliver a man from being a believer in "gods many and lords many"!"
Given the context is the gospel era of the New Testament, many individuals were/are regenerated under the sound of the gospel (or with a great deal of intellectual knowledge of the gospel), or like Paul - in the face of Jesus Christ. In this gospel era, knowledge of the gospel is readily accessible to the regenerate. Such a text as Ephes. 1:19,20 does not prove that gospel knowledge is to be equated with the principle of grace given in regeneration; what it proves is that to a man like Paul who already had extensive knowledge in an unregenerate state, the missing component was trust in Christ, not knowledge of Christ.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Yes, we agree, that a "volitional" act is involved in the receiving of the truth and being saved by it, but we deny that this salvation is not a salvation from sin, or is not a being "born again." Again, what do the scriptures say of those who do not believe in Jesus? Let me give a sampling.
1. They will be "punished with eternal destruction." (II Thess. 1: 8, 9)
2. They are "under the wrath of God." (John 3: 36)
3. They shall "die in their sins." (John 8: 24)
4, They will be "condemned" in the judgment. (Mark 16: 16)"
These passages, like 2 Thess. 1:7-9, can be rebutted with the same logic I used. As to James 1:21, I do not exegete this passage in terms of a "timely salvation". The text is not dealing with regeneration primarily, as the Logos has already been engrafted, but the reference, "which is able to save your souls", refers to the Logos, not the accepting of it. The salvation is necessarily eternal, therefore. The volitional nature of the passage is addressed to the individual with the engrafted Logos to submit to it, and to it's converting and sanctifying direction of the perfect law of liberty of verse 25. This is my understanding of the text. Most of my previous writing on this text outside of this post (and some in this post) was a reductio ad absurdum argument of Brother Garrett's position.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Making James 1: 18 (the divine "begetting" through the word) and James 1:21 (the "saving" resulting from "receiving" the word) to be dealing with conversion, or to their "time salvation," an experience that Jason and the Hardshells say happen in the Arminian fashion, by free will power and human effort, is bad hermeneutics. Can he name a Baptist theologian who interpreted James 1: 18 and 21 as dealing with only a temporal salvation? You are not "primitive" or "original" if you interpret these verses as dealing with a salvation that is not eternal."
I do see the salvation as eternal. The volitional nature of submitting to the direction of the engrafted Logos leads to being blessed on this earth in that work, according to James 1:25. Surely that is a timely blessing. It is obvious to question whether the forgetful hearer ever had the Logos engrafted, as James states that such a one deceives himself (vs. 22).
Brother Garrett states:
"Jason asks the standard Hardshell interrogative when he asks - "how much gospel must one believe" to be saved? Does he not know? If I asked him, "how much gospel do you need to know" to be "converted," or saved in a "time salvation" sense, what would he say? But, there are lots of scripture that answers his question, and he ought to know about them."
Gospel conversion and timely salvation is according to the gospel truth understood, so it admits of degrees. Garrett's analogy is a false one to escape answering the question. It seems likely that Garrett's understanding of faith as knowledge of the gospel would logically damn most of the Arminian world with it's semi-Pelagian view of man.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Obviously the hindering of people from "entering the kingdom of heaven" is connected with being made a superlative child of Hell! Obviously then, the context is dealing with eternal destinies."
This is humorous exegesis. The context of Matt. 23:15 is "obviously" a condemnation of the Jewish religious leaders. This text is not in a contextual flow that justifies the belief that the "hindering" of verse 13 is necessarily eternal. And if it is, how can individuals enter eternal salvation in part only to be finally hindered by the Jewish leaders? This is highly problematic outside of an Arminian system of access into eternity by free will. Eternal salvation cannot logically be understood to be had in part, as the text alludes, unless we make the possession of it contingent on the will of man. The fact remains that Garrett twists the intuitive meaning of this text to harmonize with Calvinistic presuppositions - a method of hermeneutics of which he accuses Primitive Baptists.
He goes on to say:
"Now, from God's perspective, men do not successfully hinder the elect from finally obtaining salvation, both regeneration and conversion. The passages do not say that the elect are kept from salvation, although they may be hindered for a time, so that they could have been saved earlier than they actually were. Men are hindered from being saved, looking at the matter from the standpoint of means and second causes, or from the human finite perspective."
Garrett argues by reason here, appealing to his system of doctrine rather than the plain words of Scripture - something he has upbraided me for as bad hermeneutics. He must cling to his presupposed doctrine, which he brings to this passage, because he cannot harmonize the context and escape. Surely this disproves his objection to Scriptures I have interpreted by a similar method. The texts themselves admit of no future point in which those hindered entered in, so Garrett relies on an argument from silence in the context to escape an Arminian or Primitive Baptist view. He fails by his own objection.
Brother Garrett stated:
""For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)
Jesus, in fulfillment of the moral law, loved all men, so the Father is also said to love all men. We may substitute the word "lover" in the place of "saviour" and say that "God is the lover of all men, specially of those that believe (elect).""
The Greek word for 'Saviour' in this text is 'soter', which obviously means deliverer, not 'lover'. Does Brother Garrett deny limited atonement? The reference of "all men" refers to kinds of men, not each individual man. If Christ loved all men in a covenant of creation sense it would go without saying that he loved the rich, young ruler. The fact that it is stated that he 'loved' him implies a distinctive love - a love by virtue of the covenant of creation would be redundant and manifest. This line of reasoning preserves the natural impression of the text; whereas, Brother Garrett's is counter-intuitive - a position he must advocate because he cannot accept the "plain declarations of Scripture".
Monday, July 11, 2011
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Garrett's Response 4.0
This post is in response to Brother Garrett's blog post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/history-in-perspective.html
Brother Garrett stated:
"Gilbert Beebe believed that all the elect must be both regenerated and converted, conversion being the experience of being "born again." Jesus said "you must be born again" to be saved in heaven, and Beebe, and his cohort, Trott, believed that this being "born again" was being converted by faith in Christ and the gospel. I too believe that this new birth is the same as conversion."
But Brother Garrett believes that regeneration is synonymous with conversion - that it "refers to the same singular experience". Beebe and Trott did not advocate this, as they distinguished between the two. Now, they did believe that all the elect would be converted, but my original point was that they did not believe in means for regeneration. While Primitive Baptists today would reject the view that the effectual call of God extends to conversion, as John Gill even entertains the volitional nature of gospel conversion when he states, "then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe..." (not that regenerate men who have had the principle of grace infused are determined to believe), they would agree with the basic distinction between sonship and discipleship in Beebe and Trott.
The "redefinition" of Beebe I spoke of was linguistic - in making regeneration distinct from being "born again". The use of the term "born again" as distinct from the term "regeneration" is a language distinction that neither Brother Garrett or modern Primitive Baptists make. Modern PBs (Primitive Baptists) make such a distinction in principle, though they disagree with necessitating the latter stage, and they believe, like Beebe and Trott, that this latter stage of discipleship is brought about by means of the preached gospel.
Brother Garrett was confusing in his argument of this post because he failed to note that it was Beebe's doctrine of God's absolute predestination of all things that separated Beebe from mainstream PBs, not a doctrine of means per se.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason says that it is "Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion." But, I have already addressed this mere assertion by Jason. Jason gave us no scripture that defined regeneration as being, for instance, experienced apart from gospel knowledge and faith, or on the subconscious level, but I have given biblical definitions of the experience of regeneration. But, it is remarkable that Jason would so markedly contradict himself in the above few words. First, he says that he can distinguish regeneration from conversion and then says that the scriptures meld them together, i.e., does not distinguish between them! These are examples of Hardshell hermeneutics. I plan to write a couple chapters yet in my book on the Hardshells about their hermeneutical methods, something the Elder Watson also felt that his Hardshell brethren needing teaching about."
I have addressed distinguishing regeneration from conversion on the basis of Luke 22:31,32, which Brother Garrett even conceded. I have given Scripture that defined the new birth apart from gospel knowledge in John 3:8. Brother Garrett must mean that I have not given him Scripture that he would accept to this conclusion. I have shown how that Dr. Gill allowed for different interpretations of James 1:18, 1 Cor. 4:15, and 1 Peter 1:23 than Brother Garrett insists on; interpretations that deny gospel means in the actual act of regeneration, but allow for means in the "drawing out of faith" in gospel conversion.
I stated that some Scriptures do not make a sharp contrast between regeneration and gospel conversion, but associate them as fully consistent. This is not a contradiction, as I have allowed for this in terms of the context of the spread of the gospel - the context in which the New Testament was penned. However, we know there is a distinction to be made when we examine the whole counsel of God, as in Luke 22:31,32 or John 3:8. Your sophistry is dishonest; offering explanations you do not accept is quite different than not offering any explanation.
Brother Garrett stated:
""Fully converted," correct! Conversion, like sanctification, has both an initial application, and an ongoing application in the life of the believer. We are not converted from all our false ideas when we are initially converted. But, initial salvation and regeneration is a conversion! Does Jason deny that there is a "change" in regeneration? Do not the words "repent" and "conversion" denote change? Jason admits that there are degrees and stages of the conversion process, but why does he deny that conversion is an integral part of regeneration?"
If conversion is defined as any change, then the new birth could be said to be a conversion, though regeneration addresses the moral affections, as we were also sometimes disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, but if we define it as a change of thought process in mentally competent adults per Luke 22:31,32 whereby ideas and beliefs are rendered more consistent to the principle of grace infused in regeneration, this is a definition of conversion that is intellectual and presupposes a context in which the non-rational appetites have been altered.
The only reason Brother Garrett wants to insist on an initial application of "conversion" is because he wants to view it synonymously with the new birth. The texts he references do not indicate that the Scripture equates conversion with the new birth. In fact he seems to fail to realize that the context of Matt. 18:3 is the disciples who were presumably already born again. Jesus tells the disciples that unless they are converted and become as the little child, they shall not enter the kingdom of God.
Acts 3:19's use of converted is consistent with gospel conversion, not regeneration, as this is what these Jews were called to acknowledge. Repentance and conversion to the gospel accompanies eternal salvation and the forgiveness or blotting out of sin - which gospel it is the nature of the regenerate to accept, as it draws the root trust in God imparted in regeneration.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Gilbert Beebe believed that all the elect must be both regenerated and converted, conversion being the experience of being "born again." Jesus said "you must be born again" to be saved in heaven, and Beebe, and his cohort, Trott, believed that this being "born again" was being converted by faith in Christ and the gospel. I too believe that this new birth is the same as conversion."
But Brother Garrett believes that regeneration is synonymous with conversion - that it "refers to the same singular experience". Beebe and Trott did not advocate this, as they distinguished between the two. Now, they did believe that all the elect would be converted, but my original point was that they did not believe in means for regeneration. While Primitive Baptists today would reject the view that the effectual call of God extends to conversion, as John Gill even entertains the volitional nature of gospel conversion when he states, "then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe..." (not that regenerate men who have had the principle of grace infused are determined to believe), they would agree with the basic distinction between sonship and discipleship in Beebe and Trott.
The "redefinition" of Beebe I spoke of was linguistic - in making regeneration distinct from being "born again". The use of the term "born again" as distinct from the term "regeneration" is a language distinction that neither Brother Garrett or modern Primitive Baptists make. Modern PBs (Primitive Baptists) make such a distinction in principle, though they disagree with necessitating the latter stage, and they believe, like Beebe and Trott, that this latter stage of discipleship is brought about by means of the preached gospel.
Brother Garrett was confusing in his argument of this post because he failed to note that it was Beebe's doctrine of God's absolute predestination of all things that separated Beebe from mainstream PBs, not a doctrine of means per se.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason says that it is "Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion." But, I have already addressed this mere assertion by Jason. Jason gave us no scripture that defined regeneration as being, for instance, experienced apart from gospel knowledge and faith, or on the subconscious level, but I have given biblical definitions of the experience of regeneration. But, it is remarkable that Jason would so markedly contradict himself in the above few words. First, he says that he can distinguish regeneration from conversion and then says that the scriptures meld them together, i.e., does not distinguish between them! These are examples of Hardshell hermeneutics. I plan to write a couple chapters yet in my book on the Hardshells about their hermeneutical methods, something the Elder Watson also felt that his Hardshell brethren needing teaching about."
I have addressed distinguishing regeneration from conversion on the basis of Luke 22:31,32, which Brother Garrett even conceded. I have given Scripture that defined the new birth apart from gospel knowledge in John 3:8. Brother Garrett must mean that I have not given him Scripture that he would accept to this conclusion. I have shown how that Dr. Gill allowed for different interpretations of James 1:18, 1 Cor. 4:15, and 1 Peter 1:23 than Brother Garrett insists on; interpretations that deny gospel means in the actual act of regeneration, but allow for means in the "drawing out of faith" in gospel conversion.
I stated that some Scriptures do not make a sharp contrast between regeneration and gospel conversion, but associate them as fully consistent. This is not a contradiction, as I have allowed for this in terms of the context of the spread of the gospel - the context in which the New Testament was penned. However, we know there is a distinction to be made when we examine the whole counsel of God, as in Luke 22:31,32 or John 3:8. Your sophistry is dishonest; offering explanations you do not accept is quite different than not offering any explanation.
Brother Garrett stated:
""Fully converted," correct! Conversion, like sanctification, has both an initial application, and an ongoing application in the life of the believer. We are not converted from all our false ideas when we are initially converted. But, initial salvation and regeneration is a conversion! Does Jason deny that there is a "change" in regeneration? Do not the words "repent" and "conversion" denote change? Jason admits that there are degrees and stages of the conversion process, but why does he deny that conversion is an integral part of regeneration?"
If conversion is defined as any change, then the new birth could be said to be a conversion, though regeneration addresses the moral affections, as we were also sometimes disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, but if we define it as a change of thought process in mentally competent adults per Luke 22:31,32 whereby ideas and beliefs are rendered more consistent to the principle of grace infused in regeneration, this is a definition of conversion that is intellectual and presupposes a context in which the non-rational appetites have been altered.
The only reason Brother Garrett wants to insist on an initial application of "conversion" is because he wants to view it synonymously with the new birth. The texts he references do not indicate that the Scripture equates conversion with the new birth. In fact he seems to fail to realize that the context of Matt. 18:3 is the disciples who were presumably already born again. Jesus tells the disciples that unless they are converted and become as the little child, they shall not enter the kingdom of God.
Acts 3:19's use of converted is consistent with gospel conversion, not regeneration, as this is what these Jews were called to acknowledge. Repentance and conversion to the gospel accompanies eternal salvation and the forgiveness or blotting out of sin - which gospel it is the nature of the regenerate to accept, as it draws the root trust in God imparted in regeneration.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Garrett's Response 3.0
This blog post is in response to Stephen Garrett's post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/two-heads.html.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason is a rebel against the plain teachings of scripture, a sign of his cult status. The passages mentioned could not be any clearer about how God begets by the gospel. Were Peter, James, and Paul not stating how God begets sinners? How God did it normally, regularly, universally? Where is Jason's authority for affirming that these writers are only saying that some were begotten by the gospel? Is Jason admitting that these passages teach that the early Christians were begotten by the gospel? Why won't Jason simply deal with the passages themselves?"
As posted earlier, Dr. Gill allowed for the validity of viewing these passages apart from gospel means, as the "Word of God" in James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:23 is translated from the Greek word, logos, which refers to Jesus Christ. Gill also argued that 1 Cor. 4:15's use of "begotten" was plausibly interpreted as a drawing out of the principle of grace infused in men at regeneration - what I have called the root of faith of trust in God, indicating that the term "begotten" is not regeneration in the first instance, but a context of gospel conversion.
I acknowledge that Gill would insist that this conversion follows regeneration for those sons under the sound of the ministry of the gospel, for it is completely consistent with the principle of grace infused in regeneration - a position I endorse. I think these texts can be used to support the inference that a general gospel rejection by sons is not consistent of those that have truly experienced the new birth.
However, to infer a strict timetable of conversion immediately following regeneration repudiates Luke 22:31,32. Brother Garrett agrees that this text's use of "converted" cannot refer to regeneration, which is exactly my point. These texts prove a context of gospel conversion apart from regeneration, which he even admits.
Brother Garrett was confused why I brought up Luke 22:31,32 in the context of James 1:18. I brought it up in the context of my exegesis of James 1:18 to show that, though I argued that James 1:18 refers to sonship and discipleship (as they were reborn to be a firstfruit of the elect), the gospel conversion of Peter shows that the discipleship was of varying degrees and of diverse process, as he denied Christ.
Brother Garrett stated:
"When Peter says - "and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you," he simply is saying "this is the message which was announced to you by the gospel." So, how does this destroy Peter's affirmation that God's elect are "born again by the incorruptible word"?
What is "the word of God proper"? Is it not the message about Jesus and God's plan of salvation? Is this word different from "the truth" (vs. 22)? Peter said, earlier in the chapter, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (vs. 9) Faith in what? Is it not the revelation of God pertaining to Christ and salvation, or to the message of the gospel? Faith in this "word of God"? Is this incorruptible word the same as "the gospel" (vs. 12)? When Peter says, a few verses later, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" (2: 3), what "word" is under consideration? Is not "THE word" the same word of I Peter 1: 23?"
The incorruptible word and what I refer to as the "word of God proper" is Jesus Christ, the logos, as Dr. Gill entertained as plausible from this text in both his commentary and in his Body of Divinity. It is different from verse 3 of chapter 2, as the "word" of 2:3 is not "logos", and refers to the gospel that is preached in 1:25. The "truth" of 1:22 must be the gospel, as the text is posed in a volitional context, but it is the sanctifying and converting influence of gospel obedience that is in view there.
Brother Garrett states:
"Jason shows himself to be in a quagmire, on a slippery slope himself. His problem is with his use of human reason in trying to understand the things of God! At first he argues that regeneration cannot be on a mental or conscious level because some are regenerated who have no mental or conscious life and yet, at other times, is forced to see regeneration as incorporating revelation, or being taught something by God. He argues, on the one hand, that the infant and the idiot prove his hardshellism, and then, on the other hand, says that God can give mental power to such characters! He speaks of what is "logically preferable"! Was it logical or reasonable for God to tell Ezekiel to preach to dead dry bones in order that they might live?"
In reference to Ezekiel, is it not logical to suppose that with God all things are possible? In any event, you have my argument completely wrong. I did not argue for God giving mental powers to those intellectually incapable. I rebutted this option as a logically inferior idea because this theory links faith to mental awareness, which would require that God make the mental powers permanent, not temporary. Once their understanding left them, it would seem to logically follow that a condition of salvation that is contingent on mental faith would also be lost. And if not, why would it not?
Brother Garrett's rebuttal in this last paragraph shows he didn't bother to understand me before replying.
He stated:
"Again, using human logic! Yet, if Jason looks at the case of John the Baptist, who the Hardshells affirm was born again while in his mother's womb, John the Baptist was given mental powers to believe the gospel!"
See my repudiation of this view above.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Does Jason not accept those prophetic statements about God writing his word upon the heart as describing regeneration? Does Jason not believe that the infant and idiot, in being regenerated, have this revelation, this writing upon their hearts, that they have "learned" of the Father?"
This writing, as in Hebrews 8:8-12, is addressed to the moral affections of the regenerate once they have the stony heart replaced with a heart of flesh. That it does not refer to teaching in an intellectual sense is evident from the very contrast in the text in verse 11. The "learning" of the new birth directly from the Father is an expression to communicate the change in moral orientation of the new birth; it does not actually connote logical, mental processes as, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit..." (1 Cor. 2:9, 10)
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason is a rebel against the plain teachings of scripture, a sign of his cult status. The passages mentioned could not be any clearer about how God begets by the gospel. Were Peter, James, and Paul not stating how God begets sinners? How God did it normally, regularly, universally? Where is Jason's authority for affirming that these writers are only saying that some were begotten by the gospel? Is Jason admitting that these passages teach that the early Christians were begotten by the gospel? Why won't Jason simply deal with the passages themselves?"
As posted earlier, Dr. Gill allowed for the validity of viewing these passages apart from gospel means, as the "Word of God" in James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:23 is translated from the Greek word, logos, which refers to Jesus Christ. Gill also argued that 1 Cor. 4:15's use of "begotten" was plausibly interpreted as a drawing out of the principle of grace infused in men at regeneration - what I have called the root of faith of trust in God, indicating that the term "begotten" is not regeneration in the first instance, but a context of gospel conversion.
I acknowledge that Gill would insist that this conversion follows regeneration for those sons under the sound of the ministry of the gospel, for it is completely consistent with the principle of grace infused in regeneration - a position I endorse. I think these texts can be used to support the inference that a general gospel rejection by sons is not consistent of those that have truly experienced the new birth.
However, to infer a strict timetable of conversion immediately following regeneration repudiates Luke 22:31,32. Brother Garrett agrees that this text's use of "converted" cannot refer to regeneration, which is exactly my point. These texts prove a context of gospel conversion apart from regeneration, which he even admits.
Brother Garrett was confused why I brought up Luke 22:31,32 in the context of James 1:18. I brought it up in the context of my exegesis of James 1:18 to show that, though I argued that James 1:18 refers to sonship and discipleship (as they were reborn to be a firstfruit of the elect), the gospel conversion of Peter shows that the discipleship was of varying degrees and of diverse process, as he denied Christ.
Brother Garrett stated:
"When Peter says - "and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you," he simply is saying "this is the message which was announced to you by the gospel." So, how does this destroy Peter's affirmation that God's elect are "born again by the incorruptible word"?
What is "the word of God proper"? Is it not the message about Jesus and God's plan of salvation? Is this word different from "the truth" (vs. 22)? Peter said, earlier in the chapter, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (vs. 9) Faith in what? Is it not the revelation of God pertaining to Christ and salvation, or to the message of the gospel? Faith in this "word of God"? Is this incorruptible word the same as "the gospel" (vs. 12)? When Peter says, a few verses later, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" (2: 3), what "word" is under consideration? Is not "THE word" the same word of I Peter 1: 23?"
The incorruptible word and what I refer to as the "word of God proper" is Jesus Christ, the logos, as Dr. Gill entertained as plausible from this text in both his commentary and in his Body of Divinity. It is different from verse 3 of chapter 2, as the "word" of 2:3 is not "logos", and refers to the gospel that is preached in 1:25. The "truth" of 1:22 must be the gospel, as the text is posed in a volitional context, but it is the sanctifying and converting influence of gospel obedience that is in view there.
Brother Garrett states:
"Jason shows himself to be in a quagmire, on a slippery slope himself. His problem is with his use of human reason in trying to understand the things of God! At first he argues that regeneration cannot be on a mental or conscious level because some are regenerated who have no mental or conscious life and yet, at other times, is forced to see regeneration as incorporating revelation, or being taught something by God. He argues, on the one hand, that the infant and the idiot prove his hardshellism, and then, on the other hand, says that God can give mental power to such characters! He speaks of what is "logically preferable"! Was it logical or reasonable for God to tell Ezekiel to preach to dead dry bones in order that they might live?"
In reference to Ezekiel, is it not logical to suppose that with God all things are possible? In any event, you have my argument completely wrong. I did not argue for God giving mental powers to those intellectually incapable. I rebutted this option as a logically inferior idea because this theory links faith to mental awareness, which would require that God make the mental powers permanent, not temporary. Once their understanding left them, it would seem to logically follow that a condition of salvation that is contingent on mental faith would also be lost. And if not, why would it not?
Brother Garrett's rebuttal in this last paragraph shows he didn't bother to understand me before replying.
He stated:
"Again, using human logic! Yet, if Jason looks at the case of John the Baptist, who the Hardshells affirm was born again while in his mother's womb, John the Baptist was given mental powers to believe the gospel!"
See my repudiation of this view above.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Does Jason not accept those prophetic statements about God writing his word upon the heart as describing regeneration? Does Jason not believe that the infant and idiot, in being regenerated, have this revelation, this writing upon their hearts, that they have "learned" of the Father?"
This writing, as in Hebrews 8:8-12, is addressed to the moral affections of the regenerate once they have the stony heart replaced with a heart of flesh. That it does not refer to teaching in an intellectual sense is evident from the very contrast in the text in verse 11. The "learning" of the new birth directly from the Father is an expression to communicate the change in moral orientation of the new birth; it does not actually connote logical, mental processes as, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit..." (1 Cor. 2:9, 10)
Garrett's Response 2.0
Brother Garrett's original post can be found here: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/garretts-error.html
He states:
"First, my name is spelled StePHen, not SteVen. Jason says that I "overrule reason." Again, Jason shows that his cult's heresy regarding regeneration, or their soteriological errors, are the result of reason and logic, for why else would he condemn my proofs and argumentation as being against "reason"? Jason and the Hardshells need to quit "leaning upon their own understanding" (upon their own reasonings) and accept humbly the plain declarations of scripture! Paul said that true gospel ministers and apologists "cast down reasonings" (II Cor. 10: 5). The apostle Paul, if he were here, would be casting down Hardshell "reasonings" just as I. Regarding the other things he said, it is repitition and I have previously rebutted his comments about the novelty of PB teaching."
I have already addressed his false dichotomy between the spiritual and the rational when it comes to Biblical interpretation. But it is ironic how one that espouses regeneration by gospel instrumentality can fail to understand that the Spirit guides and works through the rational process of exegeting the Scriptures. Speaking of cults, the idea that the Spiritual is utterly "other than" the rational is the type of "defense" that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses employ when I have engaged them in an apologetic encounter. Did Paul mean in 2 Cor. 10:5 vain reasonings or true reasonings? He probably had in mind oppositions of science FALSELY so called (1 Timothy 6:20).
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason then gives the web page where Bob's writings against Hardshellism can be read. At this location:
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
What is odd, however, is how Jason says:
"Brother Ross responded well to this "hybrid" and "novel" idea."
I am at a loss to understand how Jason could endorse Bob's words and yet argue for Hardshellism! Was this an honest admission or a kind of slur and sarcasm?"
I guess you don't recognize your own words. I quoted your blog post in which you quoted Bob Ross and approved of it. Those were certainly not my words - check your original blog post.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Hardshell views on regeneration are novel and new, at least among Baptists. It has never been denied, by Bob Ross or myself, that some of the Presbyterians were the first to omit means in regeneration, at least in the case of infants. But, if Jason wants to know about how the first Baptists of the London confession responded to this kind of regeneration, he should read Spilsbury's debate with the Presbyterian Blakewell, on the matter! Jason would find himself in line with Blakewell rather than with Spilsbury, and yet they claim to be the "original" Baptists!
What Jason also fails to admit is this, that the Presbyterians who promoted this view, Hopkins, Shedd, and Hodge, all believed that conversion would automatically follow or attend regeneration, at least in the case of adults. Will Jason agree with them on this?
Has Jason given us historical evidence to prove that Baptists in the 18th century, believed Hardshell views?"
Historical evidence has been given. As touching conversion being immediate, we know that Peter was not in Luke 22:31,32, but the Scripture does indicate that it is the nature of sons to embrace the gospel and be converted, though this would be to varying degrees of outward manifestation.
Brother Garrett stated:
"I never said Gill was "inconsistent"! Let Jason show us the statement where I said this! I have shown that it is the Hardshells who have accused Gill of being inconsistent, repeating the argument of John Daily (Daily-Throgmorton Debate) where Daily argued that Gill taught means in regeneration in his Commentaries, but had changed his mind, in his older days, and wrote a different view in his Body of Divinity and in his book The Cause of God and Truth. In my book, in the series of chapters titled "Gill and the Hardshells," I show that Gill is consistent and that the Hardshells have twisted the words of Gill, as they did the words of the London Confession in Fulton (1900), and as they do the scriptures. Also, did not the Philadelphia Association, in its early history, not recommend to all the ministry the commentaries of Gill?"
Allow me to quote from Gill's Body of Divinity:
"2d. Fourthly, The instrumental cause of regeneration, if it may be so called, are the word of God, and the ministers of it; hence regenerate persons are said to be "born again by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever", #1Pe 1:23 and again, "of his own will begat he us with the word of truth", #Jas 1:18 unless by the Word in these passages should be meant the Eternal Logos, or essential Word of God, Christ Jesus, since logov is used in both places; though ministers of the gospel are not only represented as ministers and instruments by whom others believe, but as spiritual fathers; "though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ", says the apostle to the Corinthians, #1Co 4:15 "yet have ye not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"; so he speaks of his son Onesimus, whom he had "begotten in his bonds", #Phm 1:10 yet this instrumentality of the word in regeneration seems not so agreeable to the principle of grace implanted in the soul in regeneration, and to be understood with respect to that; since that is done by immediate infusion, and is represented as a creation; and now as God made no use of any instrument in the first and old creation, so neither does it seem so agreeable that he should use any in the new creation: wherefore this is rather to be understood of the exertion of the principle of grace, and the drawing it forth into act and exercise; which is excited and encouraged by the ministry of the word, by which it appears that a man is born again; so the three thousand first converts, and the jailor, were first regenerated, or had the principle of grace wrought in their souls by the Spirit of God, and then were directed and encouraged by the ministry of the apostles to repent and believe in Christ: whereby it became manifest that they were born again. Though after all it seems plain, that the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation; then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe: "received ye the Spirit", says the apostle, "by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith": #Ga 3:2 that is, by the preaching of the law, or by the preaching of the gospel? by the latter, no doubt."
I have underlined, placed in bold, and italicized where Dr. Gill gives credence to the view I have defended. Dr. Gill plainly advanced both views here as plausible, though he still concludes an instrumental view. Dr. Gill's academic honesty is most praise-worthy, which is more than I can say for my opponent's constant sophistry.
Brother Garrett stated:
"But, the argument Jason gives is not valid because his first premise is false. John Gill did not "hedge" on the issue, was not inconsistent, and it is a lie told by Jason and the Hardshells, when they ought to know better. Therefore, Jason's conclusion (thesis), that there was a degree of uncertainly about the gospel being a means in regeneration, among the Baptist family, before the 19th century, is false. Where is the proof of this? That John Gill held Hardshell views? Where is the proof? I have shown in my writings where Gill never changed his mind on this "issue.""
I agree with Brother Garrett that Dr. Gill did not seem to change his mind in the afore quoted paragraph, but he certainly entertained as plausible the Primitive Baptist view of James 1:18, 1 Cor. 4:15, and 1 Peter 1:23. A man is being dishonest to not admit this. It is clear, therefore, that Primitive Baptist views of these texts were at least contemporary with Gill, which disproves Brother Garret's sweeping generalizations of Baptist history.
He states:
"First, my name is spelled StePHen, not SteVen. Jason says that I "overrule reason." Again, Jason shows that his cult's heresy regarding regeneration, or their soteriological errors, are the result of reason and logic, for why else would he condemn my proofs and argumentation as being against "reason"? Jason and the Hardshells need to quit "leaning upon their own understanding" (upon their own reasonings) and accept humbly the plain declarations of scripture! Paul said that true gospel ministers and apologists "cast down reasonings" (II Cor. 10: 5). The apostle Paul, if he were here, would be casting down Hardshell "reasonings" just as I. Regarding the other things he said, it is repitition and I have previously rebutted his comments about the novelty of PB teaching."
I have already addressed his false dichotomy between the spiritual and the rational when it comes to Biblical interpretation. But it is ironic how one that espouses regeneration by gospel instrumentality can fail to understand that the Spirit guides and works through the rational process of exegeting the Scriptures. Speaking of cults, the idea that the Spiritual is utterly "other than" the rational is the type of "defense" that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses employ when I have engaged them in an apologetic encounter. Did Paul mean in 2 Cor. 10:5 vain reasonings or true reasonings? He probably had in mind oppositions of science FALSELY so called (1 Timothy 6:20).
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason then gives the web page where Bob's writings against Hardshellism can be read. At this location:
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
What is odd, however, is how Jason says:
"Brother Ross responded well to this "hybrid" and "novel" idea."
I am at a loss to understand how Jason could endorse Bob's words and yet argue for Hardshellism! Was this an honest admission or a kind of slur and sarcasm?"
I guess you don't recognize your own words. I quoted your blog post in which you quoted Bob Ross and approved of it. Those were certainly not my words - check your original blog post.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Hardshell views on regeneration are novel and new, at least among Baptists. It has never been denied, by Bob Ross or myself, that some of the Presbyterians were the first to omit means in regeneration, at least in the case of infants. But, if Jason wants to know about how the first Baptists of the London confession responded to this kind of regeneration, he should read Spilsbury's debate with the Presbyterian Blakewell, on the matter! Jason would find himself in line with Blakewell rather than with Spilsbury, and yet they claim to be the "original" Baptists!
What Jason also fails to admit is this, that the Presbyterians who promoted this view, Hopkins, Shedd, and Hodge, all believed that conversion would automatically follow or attend regeneration, at least in the case of adults. Will Jason agree with them on this?
Has Jason given us historical evidence to prove that Baptists in the 18th century, believed Hardshell views?"
Historical evidence has been given. As touching conversion being immediate, we know that Peter was not in Luke 22:31,32, but the Scripture does indicate that it is the nature of sons to embrace the gospel and be converted, though this would be to varying degrees of outward manifestation.
Brother Garrett stated:
"I never said Gill was "inconsistent"! Let Jason show us the statement where I said this! I have shown that it is the Hardshells who have accused Gill of being inconsistent, repeating the argument of John Daily (Daily-Throgmorton Debate) where Daily argued that Gill taught means in regeneration in his Commentaries, but had changed his mind, in his older days, and wrote a different view in his Body of Divinity and in his book The Cause of God and Truth. In my book, in the series of chapters titled "Gill and the Hardshells," I show that Gill is consistent and that the Hardshells have twisted the words of Gill, as they did the words of the London Confession in Fulton (1900), and as they do the scriptures. Also, did not the Philadelphia Association, in its early history, not recommend to all the ministry the commentaries of Gill?"
Allow me to quote from Gill's Body of Divinity:
"2d. Fourthly, The instrumental cause of regeneration, if it may be so called, are the word of God, and the ministers of it; hence regenerate persons are said to be "born again by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever", #1Pe 1:23 and again, "of his own will begat he us with the word of truth", #Jas 1:18 unless by the Word in these passages should be meant the Eternal Logos, or essential Word of God, Christ Jesus, since logov is used in both places; though ministers of the gospel are not only represented as ministers and instruments by whom others believe, but as spiritual fathers; "though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ", says the apostle to the Corinthians, #1Co 4:15 "yet have ye not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"; so he speaks of his son Onesimus, whom he had "begotten in his bonds", #Phm 1:10 yet this instrumentality of the word in regeneration seems not so agreeable to the principle of grace implanted in the soul in regeneration, and to be understood with respect to that; since that is done by immediate infusion, and is represented as a creation; and now as God made no use of any instrument in the first and old creation, so neither does it seem so agreeable that he should use any in the new creation: wherefore this is rather to be understood of the exertion of the principle of grace, and the drawing it forth into act and exercise; which is excited and encouraged by the ministry of the word, by which it appears that a man is born again; so the three thousand first converts, and the jailor, were first regenerated, or had the principle of grace wrought in their souls by the Spirit of God, and then were directed and encouraged by the ministry of the apostles to repent and believe in Christ: whereby it became manifest that they were born again. Though after all it seems plain, that the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation; then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe: "received ye the Spirit", says the apostle, "by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith": #Ga 3:2 that is, by the preaching of the law, or by the preaching of the gospel? by the latter, no doubt."
I have underlined, placed in bold, and italicized where Dr. Gill gives credence to the view I have defended. Dr. Gill plainly advanced both views here as plausible, though he still concludes an instrumental view. Dr. Gill's academic honesty is most praise-worthy, which is more than I can say for my opponent's constant sophistry.
Brother Garrett stated:
"But, the argument Jason gives is not valid because his first premise is false. John Gill did not "hedge" on the issue, was not inconsistent, and it is a lie told by Jason and the Hardshells, when they ought to know better. Therefore, Jason's conclusion (thesis), that there was a degree of uncertainly about the gospel being a means in regeneration, among the Baptist family, before the 19th century, is false. Where is the proof of this? That John Gill held Hardshell views? Where is the proof? I have shown in my writings where Gill never changed his mind on this "issue.""
I agree with Brother Garrett that Dr. Gill did not seem to change his mind in the afore quoted paragraph, but he certainly entertained as plausible the Primitive Baptist view of James 1:18, 1 Cor. 4:15, and 1 Peter 1:23. A man is being dishonest to not admit this. It is clear, therefore, that Primitive Baptist views of these texts were at least contemporary with Gill, which disproves Brother Garret's sweeping generalizations of Baptist history.
Garrett's Response 1.0
This blog post is in response to: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/jason-on-garretts-work.html
Brother Garrett has observed that I have failed to address him as 'Brother', and I offer sincere apology for not doing so from the beginning, as I bear him no ill will. My failure to recognize his belief in our Lord and Saviour was caused by an intention to avoid presumption, not because I thought he was not a disciple of Christ.
Notice I said 'disciple'. Brother Garrett states:
"So we have a spokesman for the Hardshells, finally, after trying to get one since the early nineties! I salute Jason for being open to debate publicly what I have written about the "Primitive Baptists." I will be defending my thesis, that the Hardshells are a cult, and not "primitive" or "original" Baptists on leading points of doctrine. I am discussing (debating) Hardshellism now with a PB elder, but he wants to remain incognito in regard to our discussions. So, again, hooray to Jason for being willing to "reveal to the world" that the Hardshells are not a cult, but the "one and only true church of Jesus Christ," the "only ones" who preach a pure gospel, the only ones truly "converted.""
Brother Garrett belongs with the Sophists of Ancient Greece it seems, especially as he seems to enjoy making sweeping generalizations and pass them off as the completely accurate truth. Maybe if he was less inclined to rhetoric, PB Elders would engage him publically. By creating an inflammatory context of discussion, it undoubtedly justifies in the eyes of many Elders not, "answering a fool unto his folly, lest you be like unto him."
Though the Primitive Baptist Church may represent the truest Church in existence, this does not imply Brother Garrett's pejorative implication that other churches are not worshipping Jesus Christ with some measure of the gospel, and that the members of other orders are not disciples of Jesus Christ, having some measure of gospel conversion according to the measure of the gospel embraced.
Brother Garrett's criticism of the uses of "Primitive" or "Original" as they relate to Primitive Baptists is in regard to means in regeneration. He says that PB's (Primitive Baptists) are neither "Primitive" or "Original" in "leading points of doctrine". I am sure that he is aware that these designations came about because the PB's refused to change what they took to be the simple New Testament pattern of worship of the early church in the context of the Missionary division. To this end, the designations under consideration would be entirely appropriate.
Though PB's have clarified their doctrine of regeneration away from gospel instrumentality, as I have stated previously, the London Confession and early Baptist theologians did not have the debate of the Missionary controversy to prompt precise theological distinctions. Furthermore, Elder Mike Ivey's Book, "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice", which is on the web, details how the old Midland Association, descending from Olchon, the oldest church in Wales, advocated views that were accused of hyper or high Calvinism:
Owen's assessment of the original beliefs of the founders of the Midland Association suggests they were primitives, not high Calvinists. Further, his statement concerning the younger generation of preachers implies that gospel instrumentality in regeneration was newly introduced and represented a doctrinal departure from the original beliefs of the Midland brethren. "The younger generation of ministers, like Fuller of Kettering; Carey of Moulton; Sutcliffe of Olney and the younger Ryland, being more open to conviction, and less wedded to the old, rigid creed, began to advocate a modification of the old views, and to adopt as the basis of their ministry a moderate Calvinism which permitted them to appeal to the unconverted."
Brother Garrett has observed that I have failed to address him as 'Brother', and I offer sincere apology for not doing so from the beginning, as I bear him no ill will. My failure to recognize his belief in our Lord and Saviour was caused by an intention to avoid presumption, not because I thought he was not a disciple of Christ.
Notice I said 'disciple'. Brother Garrett states:
"So we have a spokesman for the Hardshells, finally, after trying to get one since the early nineties! I salute Jason for being open to debate publicly what I have written about the "Primitive Baptists." I will be defending my thesis, that the Hardshells are a cult, and not "primitive" or "original" Baptists on leading points of doctrine. I am discussing (debating) Hardshellism now with a PB elder, but he wants to remain incognito in regard to our discussions. So, again, hooray to Jason for being willing to "reveal to the world" that the Hardshells are not a cult, but the "one and only true church of Jesus Christ," the "only ones" who preach a pure gospel, the only ones truly "converted.""
Brother Garrett belongs with the Sophists of Ancient Greece it seems, especially as he seems to enjoy making sweeping generalizations and pass them off as the completely accurate truth. Maybe if he was less inclined to rhetoric, PB Elders would engage him publically. By creating an inflammatory context of discussion, it undoubtedly justifies in the eyes of many Elders not, "answering a fool unto his folly, lest you be like unto him."
Though the Primitive Baptist Church may represent the truest Church in existence, this does not imply Brother Garrett's pejorative implication that other churches are not worshipping Jesus Christ with some measure of the gospel, and that the members of other orders are not disciples of Jesus Christ, having some measure of gospel conversion according to the measure of the gospel embraced.
Brother Garrett's criticism of the uses of "Primitive" or "Original" as they relate to Primitive Baptists is in regard to means in regeneration. He says that PB's (Primitive Baptists) are neither "Primitive" or "Original" in "leading points of doctrine". I am sure that he is aware that these designations came about because the PB's refused to change what they took to be the simple New Testament pattern of worship of the early church in the context of the Missionary division. To this end, the designations under consideration would be entirely appropriate.
Though PB's have clarified their doctrine of regeneration away from gospel instrumentality, as I have stated previously, the London Confession and early Baptist theologians did not have the debate of the Missionary controversy to prompt precise theological distinctions. Furthermore, Elder Mike Ivey's Book, "A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice", which is on the web, details how the old Midland Association, descending from Olchon, the oldest church in Wales, advocated views that were accused of hyper or high Calvinism:
"In A Memorial of the 250th Anniversary of the Midland, now the West Midland Association 1655 to 1905, J. Gwynn Owen notes opposition in the 1770s and 80s by certain older ministers of the association to the promotion of manmade institutions such as Sunday Schools and Missionary Societies. These innovations were introduced to the Midlands by Elders Fuller and Carey who were members of the Association. In explaining their opposition to Fuller and Carey's ideas, Owen wrote of the older ministers, "These revered seniors were more or less bound by the doctrines of a higher Calvinism than now influences theology."
An example of the intensity of disturbance the proposed schemes caused is found in an exchange between William Carey and the senior Elder John Ryland (who ordained Carey) during a ministerial conference held at Northhampton. Carey suggested, as a topic for discussion, the need for missionary efforts to deliver the gospel to save heathens in foreign countries. To this Elder Ryland, who was chairing the conference, responded, "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do so without your help or mine." Elder Ryland's statement indicates his position concerning gospel instrumentality. Though he only included himself and Carey, his dismissal of Carey's topic for discussion may be interpreted as theological disagreement over the issue of Calvin's doctrine of gospel instrumentality in the regeneration of sinners. He evidently did not believe that hearing the gospel was a requirement for regeneration, or a stipulation of election.
Indicating enthusiastic support for gospel instrumentality together with its trappings of Sunday schools and Missionary societies, Owen is generally unsympathetic toward the doctrines held by Elder Ryland and the other "revered seniors" among the ministry of the Midland Association. By the time Owen wrote his memorial work the Midland Association had progressed from primitive to Calvinist to Arminian in theology. Therefore, Owen deserves commendation for resisting temptations to write a revisionist history which would not accurately present the original doctrine of the Midland Association and the strain which introduction of gospel agency caused.
Owen erroneously labels the beliefs of the original Elders of the Midland as High Calvinism. However, he accurately presents their doctrinal position concerning the relationship of gospel agency and new birth with the following statement. "For the logical High-Calvinist could find no scope in his rigorous creed for the operation of any human agency in winning the unconverted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God saves all who are predestinated, and no man can help or hinder His sovereign and effectual grace."
Owen's assessment of the original beliefs of the founders of the Midland Association suggests they were primitives, not high Calvinists. Further, his statement concerning the younger generation of preachers implies that gospel instrumentality in regeneration was newly introduced and represented a doctrinal departure from the original beliefs of the Midland brethren. "The younger generation of ministers, like Fuller of Kettering; Carey of Moulton; Sutcliffe of Olney and the younger Ryland, being more open to conviction, and less wedded to the old, rigid creed, began to advocate a modification of the old views, and to adopt as the basis of their ministry a moderate Calvinism which permitted them to appeal to the unconverted."
Thus, with the passing of such stalwarts as Elder John Ryland the next generation of ministers pursued new theologies, leading their brethren away from true and historic doctrines of grace which had been held by the Baptists of Wales and the Midlands for almost 1700 years." (A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice, Chapter 6)
It seems there is sufficient evidence to reasonably suppose that Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration pre-dated the London Confession. This alone rebuts most of Brother Garrett's rejoinder to my first blog post.
I want to rebut certain other portions of Brother Garrett's blog post because they are representative of a flawed process and method of debate. He has accused me in several places of exalting intellect above the revelation of God. He states:
"But, do we get our doctrine by human logic and reasoning or by the express and plain declarations of scripture? This is typical of Hardshells, who make their arguments based upon "logic" rather than on "thus saith the Lord." I have written several chapters in my book on the Hardshell Baptist Cult dealing with this kind of hermeneutic."
Brother Garrett represents a false dichotomy here. Scripture requires reasoning to be understood. There is no Scripture that man does not reason to its truth, as language requires a mental process. We pray that the Spirit of God guides our interaction, but the process of interpretation involves both the guiding hand of God and man's will.
Brother Garrett is simply begging the question. What he takes to be the "plain declarations of Scripture" is exactly what is disputed. Two informal fallacies in the same paragraph. Perhaps I should begin to address Brother Garrett as Brother Garrett, the Sophist.
He states:
"It is interesting how Jason gave us no scripture that says that regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit alone apart from means. In fact, numerous passages say we are begotten by the gospel. (James 1: 18; I Peter 1: 23-25; I Cor. 4: 15)"
Brother Garrett makes this statement in the context of my blog post in which I argue from John 3:8 the exact principle that he accuses me of not arguing. I wonder if it would be possible, or if its too much to ask that Brother Garrett respond to my individual blog posts as a whole rather than individual paragraphs in my blog posts that may not contain arguments that are contained in a later paragraph of the same blog post. To respond to the principle being advocated rather then every word would also cut down on length and repetition.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Fralick and Cayce on Romans 10
Brother Fralick posted a blog, "A Cayce Contradiction", here: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/cayce-contradiction.html.
I must agree with his criticism of Cayce's exposition on Romans 10:17, as the 'word of God' in context is surely the gospel of peace preached by God-called ministers from the preceding 15th verse. He is right to point out that Cayce's interpretation makes the faith under consideration the faith given in regeneration:
"The word here is the speech of God. God speaks to the sinner who is dead in sins, and by the power of that speech the sinner is made alive in Christ, made alive from the dead..." (Cayce's Editorials, Volume 5, pages 123, 124)
This interpretation would be on an exegetical collision course with the majority view of Primitive Baptists today that the salvation of Romans 10:1 was a temporal salvation that regenerate but gospel ignorant Jews did not enjoy. This is a view that Cayce would not have shared, given his exegesis of this text, as the majority of Israel did not have this faith is plain from the 16th verse and by the analogy Paul makes in 11:2-5 to the Jewish unbelief and the unbelief in the time of Elijah.
What is important to realize about justification by faith in the book of Romans is that it is a root trust in the promises of God. This was the nature of Abraham's justification. He did not have the gospel of Paul; nevertheless, Paul used Abraham to illustrate the doctrine, and Abraham had the righteousness of God imputed to him. Abraham, as a regenerate man, embraced in faith the revelation available to him. If Abraham had Christ preached to him as we know the gospel today, you think Paul would have stated that, which would only have strengthened Paul's argumentation in Romans.
In the time of Paul, God's revelation was the gospel. It is the nature of truly regenerate men to embrace the gospel, as Abraham embraced the direct revelation of God to go to a land that God would show him. It is not consistent for those that possess justifying faith and imputed righteousness not to confess Jesus Christ as Lord (Romans 10:11), as faith in the gospel is had from the root of faith/trust in God that Abraham was given when he was spiritually reborn. This is the faith of Romans 10:17. It is a gospel faith, which is the natural extension of the root of faith imparted in the new birth.
Now, it is unnecessary to question that the salvation of Romans 10:1 is eternal, as Paul's thoughts on unbelief are clear from 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9. Indeed, if we examine Romans 9:11-16, it is framed in elaboration to Jewish unbelief (9:6). Paul is clear here that election explains Jewish unbelief. He is also clear in 11:7.
Brother Fralick's challenges:
1) Does faith come by hearing?
Yes, gospel faith comes by hearing.
2) Was Elder Cayce treating Romans 10 as speaking of eternal salvation? If he
wasn't, why the need to deny the faith of verse 17 as coming by way of hearing
the gospel? If he was, is he therefore "out of order"?
I believe I answered this above. I doubt Elder Cayce exposited Romans 10 as most Primitives do today because it would be elementary to see the conflict with his exposition of 10:17.
3) If the faith of Romans 10:17 is part of an optional 'gospel salvation' for the
elect, should not Cayce be trying to PROVE that the faith comes by the 'gospel'?
See above. Saying that gospel salvation is 'optional' makes light of the powerful influence of the spirit in sanctification attending the preached word, working in the redeemed both to will and to do His good pleasure.
4) Does the preposition 'by' in v.17 signify that means of some sort are to follow in the passage?
It does because gospel conversion is mediated through the ministry of the word.
5) Is the faith which comes by hearing a gift of God's grace or a work of men?
Gospel faith is a natural extension of the root trust in God imparted in regeneration. The Spirit testifies to the truth of it, convicting the heart and mind of the regenerate. It pertains to life and Godliness (2 Peter 1:3), so it is a gift of God. Man, having the influence of the flesh, may quench the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19) for a time in terms of showing forth the fruits of this belief, even as Peter denied Christ.
6) If the faith which comes by hearing is of God's grace, then why is it stated that it is part of 'time salvation', which is a system of works?
It is categorized thusly to account for the influence of the flesh and of satan, even as Peter's path to conversion after being born again was tempestuous, or as Paul states in 2 Timothy 2:13, "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny Himself". This same relationship is understood of sanctification, which is a work of synergy between man and the Spirit.
7) If faith comes through the gospel does it cease to be of God?
Not at all, because gospel faith is a natural extension of the root of faith imparted by God in regeneration.
8) Is Christ the author of 'evangelical faith' ?
In that evangelical faith is the extension of a root of a fundamental trust given in regeneration, an affirmative would have to be given.
9) If my faith in Christ is part of how I ‘save myself while I live here’, does it
not follow that I am the author of my own faith?
No, 'saving yourself while I live here' is a benefit of being eternally secure by the finished work of Christ. A person's faith in the gospel is built in the context of being a new creature; gospel faith is not a different faith than that given in regeneration. It is an elaborated faith, fleshed out by the revelation of the gospel.
10) Is it hypocritical to sing the following words of "I Know Whom I Have Believed" in the song service? If so, why is it sung?
"I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.
I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word ,
Creating faith in Him."
It is not hypocritical. The fundamental trust/faith given in regeneration is fully consistent with the faith a disciple has in the gospel.
I must agree with his criticism of Cayce's exposition on Romans 10:17, as the 'word of God' in context is surely the gospel of peace preached by God-called ministers from the preceding 15th verse. He is right to point out that Cayce's interpretation makes the faith under consideration the faith given in regeneration:
"The word here is the speech of God. God speaks to the sinner who is dead in sins, and by the power of that speech the sinner is made alive in Christ, made alive from the dead..." (Cayce's Editorials, Volume 5, pages 123, 124)
This interpretation would be on an exegetical collision course with the majority view of Primitive Baptists today that the salvation of Romans 10:1 was a temporal salvation that regenerate but gospel ignorant Jews did not enjoy. This is a view that Cayce would not have shared, given his exegesis of this text, as the majority of Israel did not have this faith is plain from the 16th verse and by the analogy Paul makes in 11:2-5 to the Jewish unbelief and the unbelief in the time of Elijah.
What is important to realize about justification by faith in the book of Romans is that it is a root trust in the promises of God. This was the nature of Abraham's justification. He did not have the gospel of Paul; nevertheless, Paul used Abraham to illustrate the doctrine, and Abraham had the righteousness of God imputed to him. Abraham, as a regenerate man, embraced in faith the revelation available to him. If Abraham had Christ preached to him as we know the gospel today, you think Paul would have stated that, which would only have strengthened Paul's argumentation in Romans.
In the time of Paul, God's revelation was the gospel. It is the nature of truly regenerate men to embrace the gospel, as Abraham embraced the direct revelation of God to go to a land that God would show him. It is not consistent for those that possess justifying faith and imputed righteousness not to confess Jesus Christ as Lord (Romans 10:11), as faith in the gospel is had from the root of faith/trust in God that Abraham was given when he was spiritually reborn. This is the faith of Romans 10:17. It is a gospel faith, which is the natural extension of the root of faith imparted in the new birth.
Now, it is unnecessary to question that the salvation of Romans 10:1 is eternal, as Paul's thoughts on unbelief are clear from 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9. Indeed, if we examine Romans 9:11-16, it is framed in elaboration to Jewish unbelief (9:6). Paul is clear here that election explains Jewish unbelief. He is also clear in 11:7.
Brother Fralick's challenges:
1) Does faith come by hearing?
Yes, gospel faith comes by hearing.
2) Was Elder Cayce treating Romans 10 as speaking of eternal salvation? If he
wasn't, why the need to deny the faith of verse 17 as coming by way of hearing
the gospel? If he was, is he therefore "out of order"?
I believe I answered this above. I doubt Elder Cayce exposited Romans 10 as most Primitives do today because it would be elementary to see the conflict with his exposition of 10:17.
3) If the faith of Romans 10:17 is part of an optional 'gospel salvation' for the
elect, should not Cayce be trying to PROVE that the faith comes by the 'gospel'?
See above. Saying that gospel salvation is 'optional' makes light of the powerful influence of the spirit in sanctification attending the preached word, working in the redeemed both to will and to do His good pleasure.
4) Does the preposition 'by' in v.17 signify that means of some sort are to follow in the passage?
It does because gospel conversion is mediated through the ministry of the word.
5) Is the faith which comes by hearing a gift of God's grace or a work of men?
Gospel faith is a natural extension of the root trust in God imparted in regeneration. The Spirit testifies to the truth of it, convicting the heart and mind of the regenerate. It pertains to life and Godliness (2 Peter 1:3), so it is a gift of God. Man, having the influence of the flesh, may quench the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19) for a time in terms of showing forth the fruits of this belief, even as Peter denied Christ.
6) If the faith which comes by hearing is of God's grace, then why is it stated that it is part of 'time salvation', which is a system of works?
It is categorized thusly to account for the influence of the flesh and of satan, even as Peter's path to conversion after being born again was tempestuous, or as Paul states in 2 Timothy 2:13, "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny Himself". This same relationship is understood of sanctification, which is a work of synergy between man and the Spirit.
7) If faith comes through the gospel does it cease to be of God?
Not at all, because gospel faith is a natural extension of the root of faith imparted by God in regeneration.
8) Is Christ the author of 'evangelical faith' ?
In that evangelical faith is the extension of a root of a fundamental trust given in regeneration, an affirmative would have to be given.
9) If my faith in Christ is part of how I ‘save myself while I live here’, does it
not follow that I am the author of my own faith?
No, 'saving yourself while I live here' is a benefit of being eternally secure by the finished work of Christ. A person's faith in the gospel is built in the context of being a new creature; gospel faith is not a different faith than that given in regeneration. It is an elaborated faith, fleshed out by the revelation of the gospel.
10) Is it hypocritical to sing the following words of "I Know Whom I Have Believed" in the song service? If so, why is it sung?
"I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.
I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word ,
Creating faith in Him."
It is not hypocritical. The fundamental trust/faith given in regeneration is fully consistent with the faith a disciple has in the gospel.
Gospel Conversion
As has been previously noted, Stephen Garrett believes that James 1:18 proves that regeneration is effected by the gospel.
One of the difficulties in taking this view of this text is observed by examining James 1:21, "...receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." This text puts the acceptation of the word on a volitional level. If the gospel is God's instrument to effect regeneration in verse 18, by verse 21 it would seem to be the case that, since one could refuse to receive the engrafted word (this possibility is established in that James commands his audience to receive the word), they could oppose God's work of regeneration.
Therefore, the context of verse 18 must also entail a volitional context of gospel conversion. The effectual call of the will of God of verse 18 must be divisible from the word of truth, which was also present (but not instrumental) in the regeneration of the early Jewish disciples. They were then converted by the word after they were called from spiritual death.
As I have noted, this harmonizes with what we know of Peter's experience in Luke 22:31,32. Peter's experience of conversion much later than his spiritual birth also proves that we are not at exegetical liberty to impose a strict timetable on gospel conversion as it relates to regeneration. James 1:18 summarizes the work of God in regeneration and gospel conversion, and shows that discipleship is consistent with sonship. It does not show that discipleship must follow sonship immediately or to equal degrees.
It is evident from Scripture and natural observation that God is discrete in regard to who is blessed with gospel knowledge. The angels desire to know of the mysteries contained. Paul was directed to certain places in his missionary work. We observe that there are many that are ignorant with little understanding of the gospel. If eternal salvation hinges on mental awareness of the gospel, how much of a pure gospel is necessary to ensure eternal life?
The Jews had the gospel purposely obscured by God, according to Matt. 13:10-17 and Romans 11:7-11, 25. The Jewish leaders kept the Jewish people from believing the gospel according to Matt. 23:37 and Luke 11:52. How can these texts be exegeted in an eternal context without embracing Arminianism?
A basic trust in the gospel message is the natural reaction of sons, if they are under the sound of it, as the gospel is a savour of life unto life in them that are saved (2 Cor. 2:15,16). However, we are not at Scriptural liberty to suppose definitively the eternal destiny of any individual, though we can say generally that the Bible teaches the damnation of those that do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:7-9), or that Christ has become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him (Hebrews 5:9).
It is inconsistent for children of God not to profess Him before a body of believers and submit to Baptism, and for this they ought to wonder if they are truly regenerate. Just like it was inconsistent for the rich, young ruler to not give all that he had to feed the poor, but, at least in that case, Jesus loved him nonetheless, according to Mark.
One of the difficulties in taking this view of this text is observed by examining James 1:21, "...receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." This text puts the acceptation of the word on a volitional level. If the gospel is God's instrument to effect regeneration in verse 18, by verse 21 it would seem to be the case that, since one could refuse to receive the engrafted word (this possibility is established in that James commands his audience to receive the word), they could oppose God's work of regeneration.
Therefore, the context of verse 18 must also entail a volitional context of gospel conversion. The effectual call of the will of God of verse 18 must be divisible from the word of truth, which was also present (but not instrumental) in the regeneration of the early Jewish disciples. They were then converted by the word after they were called from spiritual death.
As I have noted, this harmonizes with what we know of Peter's experience in Luke 22:31,32. Peter's experience of conversion much later than his spiritual birth also proves that we are not at exegetical liberty to impose a strict timetable on gospel conversion as it relates to regeneration. James 1:18 summarizes the work of God in regeneration and gospel conversion, and shows that discipleship is consistent with sonship. It does not show that discipleship must follow sonship immediately or to equal degrees.
It is evident from Scripture and natural observation that God is discrete in regard to who is blessed with gospel knowledge. The angels desire to know of the mysteries contained. Paul was directed to certain places in his missionary work. We observe that there are many that are ignorant with little understanding of the gospel. If eternal salvation hinges on mental awareness of the gospel, how much of a pure gospel is necessary to ensure eternal life?
The Jews had the gospel purposely obscured by God, according to Matt. 13:10-17 and Romans 11:7-11, 25. The Jewish leaders kept the Jewish people from believing the gospel according to Matt. 23:37 and Luke 11:52. How can these texts be exegeted in an eternal context without embracing Arminianism?
A basic trust in the gospel message is the natural reaction of sons, if they are under the sound of it, as the gospel is a savour of life unto life in them that are saved (2 Cor. 2:15,16). However, we are not at Scriptural liberty to suppose definitively the eternal destiny of any individual, though we can say generally that the Bible teaches the damnation of those that do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:7-9), or that Christ has become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him (Hebrews 5:9).
It is inconsistent for children of God not to profess Him before a body of believers and submit to Baptism, and for this they ought to wonder if they are truly regenerate. Just like it was inconsistent for the rich, young ruler to not give all that he had to feed the poor, but, at least in that case, Jesus loved him nonetheless, according to Mark.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Garrett's Use of Osbourne
On July 6, 2011, Garret's blog, "Old Baptist" (http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/), contained a post examining Elder James Osbourne's position on gospel instrumentality.
Garrett ends his post with a question, "Will today's "Primitives" accept Osbourn? Why have they not preserved his books?"
The quotations he cites of Osbourne do not clearly indicate that Osbourne believed that the gospel effects regeneration; rather, they indicate that the gospel converts the regenerate, bringing them to a knowledge of their eternal salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 1:10). On this basis, all Primitive Baptists would accept these quotations. Obviously from the quotations Osbourne believed that only the sinners ordained to eternal life would believe, so though the call of the preached word might fall on the ears of the damned, it would only be efficacious to those who knew they were sinners by the new birth.
Granted that the elect are among the non-elect, the gospel ought to be preached wherever the Spirit leads. Primitive Baptists who argue that the gospel is addressed to "believers" only mean by this that only those who have been born again can rejoice and appreciate the gospel. This is true enough, but this emphasis is often made out of context, as if a silent Arminian is always lurking outside the Church fortifications. The plain truth is, we do not know who the elect are; therefore, the gospel ought to be preached indiscriminately to all men that will hear it.
Garrett ends his post with a question, "Will today's "Primitives" accept Osbourn? Why have they not preserved his books?"
The quotations he cites of Osbourne do not clearly indicate that Osbourne believed that the gospel effects regeneration; rather, they indicate that the gospel converts the regenerate, bringing them to a knowledge of their eternal salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 1:10). On this basis, all Primitive Baptists would accept these quotations. Obviously from the quotations Osbourne believed that only the sinners ordained to eternal life would believe, so though the call of the preached word might fall on the ears of the damned, it would only be efficacious to those who knew they were sinners by the new birth.
Granted that the elect are among the non-elect, the gospel ought to be preached wherever the Spirit leads. Primitive Baptists who argue that the gospel is addressed to "believers" only mean by this that only those who have been born again can rejoice and appreciate the gospel. This is true enough, but this emphasis is often made out of context, as if a silent Arminian is always lurking outside the Church fortifications. The plain truth is, we do not know who the elect are; therefore, the gospel ought to be preached indiscriminately to all men that will hear it.
Monday, July 4, 2011
History In Perspective
In Stephen Garret's most recent post at his blog, http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/, he states:
"Elder Lemuel Potter represented the "Primitive" or Hardshell Baptists in a Public Debate with Elder W. T. (Tom) Pence , at Luray, Virginia, in 1890. Elder Pence represented those in the anti-mission movement who believed that regeneration and gospel faith could not be divorced, that regeneration or being born again was a work of God done through the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, or through hearing and believing the gospel. Several debates had been occurring among those who called themselves "Anti Mission Baptists," or "Old School Baptists," "Reform Baptists," "Old" or "Original Baptists." Many of the Calvinistic Baptist churches who became part of the anti mission movement were called "Regular Baptists."
From my historical studies of the 1820-1860 period, those in the anti mission movement who denied the use of means in the new birth were a minority. Certainly the early great leaders in the movement, believed in means, men such as James Osbourne, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, John M. Watson, R. W. Fain, John Clark, and several others that could be named, believed in means, that the gospel or word of God was the instrument, in the hand of the Holy Spirit, whereby the elect are born again."
Garrett is a bit confusing when he places some of the anti-missionary advocates in the camp of believing in gospel instrumentality in the new birth, as he admits later of Beebe and Trott:
"The leading men for the "no-means" side, at the beginning, were Wilson Thompson and his son Grigg Thompson, together with several other Thompson relatives, all who became leading first generation Hardshells. Wilson Thompson, however, seemed to hold to the view of Beebe and Trott, that the new birth was distinct from regeneration, that regeneration was first, without means, but that the new birth was equated with conversion, and was accomplished by the means of the gospel. His son Grigg, however, seems to have gone farther than his father, for he equated regeneration with the new birth and denied means altogether in the glorious work."
The "new birth" being re-defined as gospel conversion would seem to render the insistence that Beebe and Trott believed in means in the "new birth"/conversion of only rhetorical or semantical significance. Modern Primitive Baptists still make this distinction, though they do not typically refer to conversion as the "new birth"; conversion to discipleship is, of course, mediated or brought about through the gospel. Garrett confuses the historical issue, therefore, by including Beebe and Trott among those that believed in gospel instrumentality in the "new birth", as they did not define the "new birth" in the typical manner.
Many of the others that Garrett names as supporting gospel means in regeneration, particularly Clark, are historically inconsistent in this support, which seems to indicate that the anti-missionary controversy had the effect of clarifying what people believed about gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Debate has always had this effect on doctrine in the history of Christianity. Admitting this lack of consistency and clarity in John Gill, for example, in reference to gospel instrumentality only indicates that it was not a subject of debate - that it was presumed by most early Baptists, particularly from England, that the gospel was God's instrument to bring about regeneration and conversion. Careful distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion were not made because debate had not yet created the need.
Therefore, appeal to early Baptist doctrine as evidenced by the London Confession has little cogency for the later anti-missionary debate because this confession was not framed with this debate in mind. Lack of precise distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion in the early confessions or in the writings of early Baptist theologians offer little proof that such distinctions are not proper.
Now, I can openly state that the anti-missionary debate created extremes as debate is wont to do. Though I think it Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion, this does not mean that every passage in the Bible evidences a clear distinction. In this gospel era, in which the gospel has been preached to the Gentile world in large part, the Scripture often melds the two as would have been often the case in the early Church, as in Acts 13:48.
James 1:18 shows the pervading presence of the gospel under which the early Jewish disciples were both born again and converted in a seemingly seamless fashion. The will of God effected regeneration and the gospel was present to ensure conversion that those early Jewish disciples would be a firstfruit of the entire elect family of God. Notice, however, that Peter's experience requires a clearer distinction.
Surely James included Peter as a firstfruit, but it is clear according to Luke 22:31-32 that Peter possessed faith before he was fully converted. It would seem, then, that James 1:18 should be viewed as a summary of the complete translation from the darkness of the unregenerate to the gospel inheritance of the saints, which encompasses both regeneration and conversion. The seamlessness of the text in reference to a distinction between sonship and discipleship is a proof of the consistency of discipleship with sonship (that the truly regenerate embrace the revelation available to them), not that there is no distinction.
It is also unnecessary for the sake of opposing missionary societies or boards to claim that the gospel has no relevance for the unregenerate. According to 1 Peter 4:6, the gospel is to be preached to spiritually dead men for the purpose of judgment that they might be judged according to men in the flesh. So, in reference to Garrett's attack on C. H. Cayce's exposition of Acts 17:28-30, I must in large part agree that Cayce's exposition of this passage is not his finest moment.
It seems to me that many Primitive Baptists have, even as some do now, gone to unnecessary doctrinal extremes to oppose missionary societies. Though I believe that the Scripture upholds the principle of a distinction between sonship and discipleship, this Biblical distinction does not carry with it the idea that the gospel is not to be preached to all men, as the elect are scattered abroad among them and the rejection of the gospel by the damned treasures up wrath against that day of wrath and righteous judgment of God who will render to every man according to his deeds.
In conclusion, it is necessary to recognize the deleterious and the profitable effect of controversy. The missionary controversy afforded doctrinal clarity in regard to gospel instrumentality, but also incited expositional misapplications. Just because a principle is taught in the Bible does not mean that it is the key to understanding every passage of the Bible.
"Elder Lemuel Potter represented the "Primitive" or Hardshell Baptists in a Public Debate with Elder W. T. (Tom) Pence , at Luray, Virginia, in 1890. Elder Pence represented those in the anti-mission movement who believed that regeneration and gospel faith could not be divorced, that regeneration or being born again was a work of God done through the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, or through hearing and believing the gospel. Several debates had been occurring among those who called themselves "Anti Mission Baptists," or "Old School Baptists," "Reform Baptists," "Old" or "Original Baptists." Many of the Calvinistic Baptist churches who became part of the anti mission movement were called "Regular Baptists."
From my historical studies of the 1820-1860 period, those in the anti mission movement who denied the use of means in the new birth were a minority. Certainly the early great leaders in the movement, believed in means, men such as James Osbourne, Gilbert Beebe, Samuel Trott, William Conrad, John M. Watson, R. W. Fain, John Clark, and several others that could be named, believed in means, that the gospel or word of God was the instrument, in the hand of the Holy Spirit, whereby the elect are born again."
Garrett is a bit confusing when he places some of the anti-missionary advocates in the camp of believing in gospel instrumentality in the new birth, as he admits later of Beebe and Trott:
"The leading men for the "no-means" side, at the beginning, were Wilson Thompson and his son Grigg Thompson, together with several other Thompson relatives, all who became leading first generation Hardshells. Wilson Thompson, however, seemed to hold to the view of Beebe and Trott, that the new birth was distinct from regeneration, that regeneration was first, without means, but that the new birth was equated with conversion, and was accomplished by the means of the gospel. His son Grigg, however, seems to have gone farther than his father, for he equated regeneration with the new birth and denied means altogether in the glorious work."
The "new birth" being re-defined as gospel conversion would seem to render the insistence that Beebe and Trott believed in means in the "new birth"/conversion of only rhetorical or semantical significance. Modern Primitive Baptists still make this distinction, though they do not typically refer to conversion as the "new birth"; conversion to discipleship is, of course, mediated or brought about through the gospel. Garrett confuses the historical issue, therefore, by including Beebe and Trott among those that believed in gospel instrumentality in the "new birth", as they did not define the "new birth" in the typical manner.
Many of the others that Garrett names as supporting gospel means in regeneration, particularly Clark, are historically inconsistent in this support, which seems to indicate that the anti-missionary controversy had the effect of clarifying what people believed about gospel instrumentality in regeneration. Debate has always had this effect on doctrine in the history of Christianity. Admitting this lack of consistency and clarity in John Gill, for example, in reference to gospel instrumentality only indicates that it was not a subject of debate - that it was presumed by most early Baptists, particularly from England, that the gospel was God's instrument to bring about regeneration and conversion. Careful distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion were not made because debate had not yet created the need.
Therefore, appeal to early Baptist doctrine as evidenced by the London Confession has little cogency for the later anti-missionary debate because this confession was not framed with this debate in mind. Lack of precise distinctions between regeneration and gospel conversion in the early confessions or in the writings of early Baptist theologians offer little proof that such distinctions are not proper.
Now, I can openly state that the anti-missionary debate created extremes as debate is wont to do. Though I think it Scripturally warranted to distinguish regeneration from conversion, this does not mean that every passage in the Bible evidences a clear distinction. In this gospel era, in which the gospel has been preached to the Gentile world in large part, the Scripture often melds the two as would have been often the case in the early Church, as in Acts 13:48.
James 1:18 shows the pervading presence of the gospel under which the early Jewish disciples were both born again and converted in a seemingly seamless fashion. The will of God effected regeneration and the gospel was present to ensure conversion that those early Jewish disciples would be a firstfruit of the entire elect family of God. Notice, however, that Peter's experience requires a clearer distinction.
Surely James included Peter as a firstfruit, but it is clear according to Luke 22:31-32 that Peter possessed faith before he was fully converted. It would seem, then, that James 1:18 should be viewed as a summary of the complete translation from the darkness of the unregenerate to the gospel inheritance of the saints, which encompasses both regeneration and conversion. The seamlessness of the text in reference to a distinction between sonship and discipleship is a proof of the consistency of discipleship with sonship (that the truly regenerate embrace the revelation available to them), not that there is no distinction.
It is also unnecessary for the sake of opposing missionary societies or boards to claim that the gospel has no relevance for the unregenerate. According to 1 Peter 4:6, the gospel is to be preached to spiritually dead men for the purpose of judgment that they might be judged according to men in the flesh. So, in reference to Garrett's attack on C. H. Cayce's exposition of Acts 17:28-30, I must in large part agree that Cayce's exposition of this passage is not his finest moment.
It seems to me that many Primitive Baptists have, even as some do now, gone to unnecessary doctrinal extremes to oppose missionary societies. Though I believe that the Scripture upholds the principle of a distinction between sonship and discipleship, this Biblical distinction does not carry with it the idea that the gospel is not to be preached to all men, as the elect are scattered abroad among them and the rejection of the gospel by the damned treasures up wrath against that day of wrath and righteous judgment of God who will render to every man according to his deeds.
In conclusion, it is necessary to recognize the deleterious and the profitable effect of controversy. The missionary controversy afforded doctrinal clarity in regard to gospel instrumentality, but also incited expositional misapplications. Just because a principle is taught in the Bible does not mean that it is the key to understanding every passage of the Bible.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Two Heads Are Better Than One?
Kevin Fralick has joined Stephen Garrett in a new blog entitled, "Old Baptist", in an effort to prove that all Baptists historically believed that the new birth is normally effected by God through the gospel as preached by men. Primitive Baptists have claimed the title of "Old Baptists" historically, but have denied that God effects regeneration through the gospel.
Mr. Fralick states:
"God, in His sovereignty, reserves the right to operate without means if He should choose to do so. Yet what Fristoe recognized as a possibility in God’s workings is deemed by certain extremists as a definite must with God."
To proceed logically in this issue, the controversy must be recognized as one that does not have the benefit of fact. By this I mean that the new birth is not clearly shown in the Scripture to be effected by the preached gospel. One might assume from such texts as James 1:18, 1 Corinthians 4:15, or 1 Peter 1:23 that the new birth can be effected by the preaching of the gospel, but this would not prove that it normally is.
Indeed, it can hardly be established that the first two texts refer to the new birth at all; a conversion into gospel truth akin to the one mentioned in Luke 22:31-32 might be in view in regard to James 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 4:15. It seems highly unlikely to suppose that Peter was unregenerate in Luke 22:31-32, as the passage indicates that Peter already possessed faith.
1 Peter 1:23 can be understood as suggesting a division between the word of God proper and the gospel, rather than the notion that the text suggests we are born again by the word of God, which is the gospel. The gospel is revelation of the word of God, and it is by the word of God proper that the elect are born again. The text seems to be more clearly understood making this distinction.
A defense of the idea that regeneration is effected by God alone through the Holy Spirit outside of means is necessary to explain how all the elect inherit eternal life. Presuming that a portion of the elect of God were/are physically incapable of hearing the gospel as preached by man, an explanation that harmonizes spiritual birth with those that are capable of hearing the preached gospel is preferable as the simplest explanation. One might suppose that God could grant temporary mental powers to the mentally incompetent elect; however, if faith is linked to mental awareness, it would seem that all parts of salvation would require it. How could sanctification occur without the mental awareness? This alternative is not logically preferable, if we are concerned with parsimony.
We are at liberty to posit such an explanation because the Bible is not clear about how God saves the mentally incompetent, or the unborn. We know that the amount of individuals that have lived on the earth who possessed competent mental function only represents a fraction of the total human race. There have been far more individuals who died in infancy or before they were born, not to mention those who continued to live without mental competence, than individuals who developed to a state of mental competence.
So, if it truly is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed (Romans 4:16), the doctrine of Justification must extend to the infant or the mentally incompetent elect the same as it would to anyone, which is by the gift in regeneration of the root of faith: trust in God.
Mr. Fralick states:
"God, in His sovereignty, reserves the right to operate without means if He should choose to do so. Yet what Fristoe recognized as a possibility in God’s workings is deemed by certain extremists as a definite must with God."
To proceed logically in this issue, the controversy must be recognized as one that does not have the benefit of fact. By this I mean that the new birth is not clearly shown in the Scripture to be effected by the preached gospel. One might assume from such texts as James 1:18, 1 Corinthians 4:15, or 1 Peter 1:23 that the new birth can be effected by the preaching of the gospel, but this would not prove that it normally is.
Indeed, it can hardly be established that the first two texts refer to the new birth at all; a conversion into gospel truth akin to the one mentioned in Luke 22:31-32 might be in view in regard to James 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 4:15. It seems highly unlikely to suppose that Peter was unregenerate in Luke 22:31-32, as the passage indicates that Peter already possessed faith.
1 Peter 1:23 can be understood as suggesting a division between the word of God proper and the gospel, rather than the notion that the text suggests we are born again by the word of God, which is the gospel. The gospel is revelation of the word of God, and it is by the word of God proper that the elect are born again. The text seems to be more clearly understood making this distinction.
A defense of the idea that regeneration is effected by God alone through the Holy Spirit outside of means is necessary to explain how all the elect inherit eternal life. Presuming that a portion of the elect of God were/are physically incapable of hearing the gospel as preached by man, an explanation that harmonizes spiritual birth with those that are capable of hearing the preached gospel is preferable as the simplest explanation. One might suppose that God could grant temporary mental powers to the mentally incompetent elect; however, if faith is linked to mental awareness, it would seem that all parts of salvation would require it. How could sanctification occur without the mental awareness? This alternative is not logically preferable, if we are concerned with parsimony.
We are at liberty to posit such an explanation because the Bible is not clear about how God saves the mentally incompetent, or the unborn. We know that the amount of individuals that have lived on the earth who possessed competent mental function only represents a fraction of the total human race. There have been far more individuals who died in infancy or before they were born, not to mention those who continued to live without mental competence, than individuals who developed to a state of mental competence.
So, if it truly is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed (Romans 4:16), the doctrine of Justification must extend to the infant or the mentally incompetent elect the same as it would to anyone, which is by the gift in regeneration of the root of faith: trust in God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)