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.
No comments:
Post a Comment