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".
No comments:
Post a Comment