This post is a rebuttal to: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/jasons-first-rebuttal.html
I originally stated:
"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."
Brother Garrett responded:
"But, I have already rebutted this line of reasoning and have not had Jason to rebut what I said in rebuttal to it. Notice that he is affirming that the Old Baptists did not believe in Hardshellism, because he says they lacked clarity on the point."
I did not state that Old Baptists did not believe what Primitive Baptists believe today. I said that Old Baptists before the Missionary controversy did not make precise theological distinctions in regard to a debate that was not yet in context. This does not necessarily imply that all Old Baptists contemporary with John Gill did not espouse doctrines of Primitive Baptists today. Consistency with what Primitive Baptists teach today is not clearly and consistently seen in the London Confession or in the writings of Gill, and it is an example of Brother Garrett's sweeping generalizations to claim that this "proves" that PB's today advocate new doctrines, especially as John Gill plainly entertains interpretations of James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:25, and 1 Cor. 4:15 in his Body of Divinity consistent with how PB's view those texts today.
I recognize that Gill would not have seen a complete separation of sonship and discipleship for those sons under the sound of the gospel in this gospel era as plausible, and neither do I. Those PB's who claim a complete distinction between these categories in this gospel era fail to recognize that the Bible is the power of God unto them that are saved - they have erred from their forefathers and the scriptures. They do not err in regard to the doctrine of immediate regeneration apart from the preached word, as this is plainly entertained by Gill. Many PB's today err in regard to the response of regenerated sons to the gospel when the regenerate are under the sound of it.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason cannot furnish any clear and express confessional statements by Ryland to prove he denied means, but only infers it from what Ryland said, but this inference is not warranted. Besides, it is not proven that Ryland ever said those words. John Ryland, Jr., however, and a close friend of Carey, denied or doubted that his father ever said those words. He said, "I never heard of it till I saw it in print, and cannot give credit to it at all." (Life of Andrew Fuller, 1816 edition, p. 175; cited in I. Murray, The Puritan Hope, chapter 7, fn. 14, p. 280).
Also, notice how Ryland, if he said those words, used the word "convert," a word denoting gospel conversion. Also, where do his words imply that God would convert the heathen apart from the gospel? Perhaps Ryland was only saying that God would do it in a different manner than being proposed by Carey. It is interesting how Jason and the Harshells have to resort to finding adherents of their doctrine, prior to the 19th century, by not citing express declarations, but by saying their words imply Hardshellism."
Evidently Garrett supposes that Ryland's use of "convert" indicates that Ryland must have seen regeneration and gospel conversion synonymously. However, this hardly follows as no one denies that gospel conversion presupposes regeneration. If Ryland viewed them synonymously, he would not have controverted Carey. The subject of their disagreement was the instrumentality of the gospel in eternal salvation, not a particular method of evangelizing. How is it an inference to interpret Ryland's comment as opposition to the idea of Carey that the eternal salvation of the heathen hinges on the gospel as preached by man? That was the very subject proposed by Carey for debate! Ryland objected to the view that eternal salvation is effected by the gospel as preached by man, which makes no sense if he viewed regeneration as normally effected by the gospel. This is hardly a stretched inference. Garrett has an express declaration that he will not accept.
As touching Ryland's son, Junior was carried away by the doctrines of Fuller and Carey, so it is no surprise that he would doubt the authenticity of the objection the elder Ryland made to Carey. It is certainly less than clear that we should doubt the historicity of this confrontation on Junior's word alone. Carey's efforts were made in a context of Baptists that opposed his missionary efforts, which should be telling to an impartial mind.
Elder Ivey stated in his book:
"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."
Brother Garrett responded:
"They objected to "human agency" and methods, not to the gospel as an agency! Much the same way the signers of the Black Rock Address objected to humanly devised means and methods for spreading the gospel, but not to the spread of the gospel itself, or to its being a means in the divine begetting of children. Ivey misreads both Owen and the Midland confession. Notice also the use of the term "unconverted" for those lost in sin."
What exactly is the substance of Garrett's supposed distinction here? To admit that ministers of the 18th century opposed human agency in the preaching of the gospel to effect regeneration indicates that these ministers denied that the gospel as preached by man was necessarily God's means of effecting regeneration. This is essentially the Primitive Baptist position. Whether God reveals the heart of the gospel of trust in God for salvation immediately in regeneration with very little propositional, gospel knowledge (as seems to have been the nature of Abraham's regeneration), regeneration would be effected apart from the instrumentality of a gospel as preached by man. This is the Primitive Baptist emphasis.
Garrett is confusing here, as in what sense would a propositional gospel be an agency without man preaching it? Does he suppose that God would preach the gospel in a propositional fashion as men would directly to the heathen while recreating them anew? If this were true, why would God not have preached Jesus Christ in this fashion to the Old Testament saints? Abraham had very little propositional knowledge of Jesus Christ as we have it today, yet his justification by faith was accomplished by his trust in the promises of God. Trust in Jesus Christ in terms of his death, burial, and resurrection was not the explicit nature of that promise, but a more general promise of an innumerable seed through a natural heir of which Christ was the final fulfillment, though the proximate fulfillment was Isaac. The nature of this promise in Gen. 15:6 is hardly "gospel preaching" as we think of it today, unless we define "gospel" more minimally to be the good news that God is our general deliverer, as Jonah put it, "Salvation is of the Lord", which no doubt is the gospel he was called to preach to Nineveh.
Owens statement above, "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.", is dishonestly interpreted by Garrett. The operation of any human agency does not simply extend to methods of evangelism; the human agency here is explicitly stated in the context of evangelism - the primary application of which is the gospel as preached by man. There is no scope for any human agency in the evangelism of the unconverted, which plainly refers to a gospel delivered by men.
Garrett stated:
"Yes, we can reason about the relationship of words in a biblical sentence, but we cannot rely upon reason as do the Hardshells. For instance, Hardshell human reasoning says it is foolish to preach to dead people, and yet this is exactly what God told the prophet to do in the story of Ezekiel and valley of bones. What did Solomon mean when he warned us not to "lean upon" our "own understanding"?"
This whole paragraph is pure rhetoric. Garrett obviously rejects Primitive Baptist reasoning, substituting it with his own reasoning. He claims that he is accepting the "plain declaration of Scripture", but his interpretations of scripture are still interpretations. When Primitive Baptists state that it is foolish to preach to dead people they are saying that unless individuals are quickened by God, words alone will be ineffectual. This still proves true of the valley of dry bones.
Brother Garrett quotes a historian:
"The American Primitive Baptist writer, Michael N. Ivey, in his wish-history, called Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice, 1994; would have us to believe that this old Church at Olchon was not one with the London Particular Baptists, and that it reached out and constituted churches in Wales and also in the Midlands. The implication is that the Midland’s Confession is totally against the First London Confession of Faith. This connection I am making is very important and will show the false and misleading conclusions of Ivey, a time conditionalist Primitive Baptist. These old Baptists in Wales were one with the London Brethren. Their union with the five churches gathered by Myles and Proud prove this."
If the Old Baptists at Olchon were "one" with the London Baptists, why did Olchon send no representatives to subsequent meetings of the London Confession Conferences, held regularly for several years after the 1644 Confession was signed, and none to the 1689 Conference?
Brother Garrett stated:
"Ivey wrote:
"The Midland Baptists have been variously characterized by Underhill, Tull, Gwynn Owen and perhaps other Baptist historians as hyper-Calvinists. This term implies they went farther with the doctrine of regeneration than did Calvin. Specifically, the distinction between Calvinism and High-Calvinism relates to the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration. It is a name that is routinely applied to modern Primitive Baptists."
The propositions highlighted are not valid. When the named historians call the Midland Baptists "hyper-Calvinists," they were not referring to the means question."
The reasoning of Garrett here is indicative of how he attacks Elder Ivey's writings, yet it completely fails by definition. Garrett supposes that what is labeled hyper-Calvinism does not entail a position of gospel instrumentality in regard to regeneration. Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that eternal salvation is secured by God alone apart from the preaching of the gospel by man. It is intrinsically anti-means in regard to regeneration and must be, or there is no logical force in opposing the preaching of the gospel that would be the instrument of God to effectually call. Surely this is clear by definition to any that would use a term that separates eternal salvation from the efforts of man.
