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.
No comments:
Post a Comment