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.
No comments:
Post a Comment