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.