Garrett on 2 Timothy 2

Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/jason-and-2-timothy-21819.html

Garrett is unclear of some of my arguments, as I did not argue that Paul asserts the certain existence of children of God who reject gospel faith permanently. I shall also call Garrett to honesty in this posting. How can we have honest, meaningful discussion when Brother Garrett depicts Gill's commentary of 2 Timothy 2:13 in a one-sided light?

It would have been honest and frank of Brother Garrett to admit that Gill plainly claims that 2 Timothy 2:13 may be interpreted as I have suggested that God is faithful toward His covenant of salvation of the elect in His son. This is blatantly stated in Book 2, chapter 5, section 2 of Gill's Body of Doctrinal Divinity in regard to the Eternal Justification of the elect in Christ.

Gill's commentary on 2 Timothy 2:13:

"If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful

The Syriac and Ethiopic versions read, "if we believe not him". This may be understood, either of such who are altogether destitute of faith, who do not believe in Christ at all; and particularly do not believe what was just now said concerning his denying such that deny him, but mock and scoff at his coming, and at a future judgment: this unbelief of theirs will not make void his faith or faithfulness; see ( Romans 3:3 ) , he will abide faithful to his word of threatening; and what he says in ( Mark 16:16 ) will be found to be an everlasting truth: or it may be understood of true believers, whose faith sometimes is very low, as to its exercise on Christ, and with reference to their future glory and happiness; but Christ is faithful to all his, covenant engagements for them, to bring them to glory, and to every word of promise concerning their happiness, and to every branch of the faithful saying above mentioned; and he is ever the same in his love to them, and in the efficacy of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; and his salvation is an everlasting and unchangeable one; nor do the saints' interest in it, and security by it, depend upon their acts of believing, or their frames, but upon the firmness and unchangeableness of Christ, the object of faith.

He cannot deny himself;

he cannot go contrary to his word; that would be to act contrary to his nature and perfections, and would be a denying of himself, which is not possible; wherefore his faithfulness will never fail, even though, the faith of his people does, as to the exercise of it."

Garrett completely ignored here in Gill the interpretation congenial to mine - the only one used by Gill to explain the latter phrase, "He cannot deny himself". The faith of God's people does fail, as to the exercise of it, as is so stated by Gill here, but as made perfectly clear in Gill's doctrine of eternal justification, this lack of faith is not a 'causa sine qua non'. How can Garrett simply ignore this section of the above quoted commentary:

" or it may be understood of true believers, whose faith sometimes is very low, as to its exercise on Christ, and with reference to their future glory and happiness; but Christ is faithful to all his, covenant engagements for them, to bring them to glory, and to every word of promise concerning their happiness, and to every branch of the faithful saying above mentioned; and he is ever the same in his love to them, and in the efficacy of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; and his salvation is an everlasting and unchangeable one; nor do the saints' interest in it, and security by it, depend upon their acts of believing, or their frames, but upon the firmness and unchangeableness of Christ, the object of faith."

As for Garrett's remarks concerning, "If we deny him, he also will deny us," in verse 12, I understood and used this phrase to reference false professors in Jesus Christ who were unregenerate. My point in referencing it in my prior post was as support of the idea (as it is juxtaposed and seems to contradict 'if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful') that Paul was not certain of the spiritual state of those with an overthrown faith. I certainly do not believe that it was ever Paul's view that it was characteristic of those truly born again to fall away from the revealed gospel. And I believe that Paul suggests by 2:25,26 that those who were truly regenerate will be restored to the acknowledgement of the truth. If they were not, it would manifest that their first profession was vain.

[I do not think I was consistent with the context of verses 10-13 in arguing that verse 12 refers to the non-elect. It seems that it does refer to the elect, as verses 11-13 seem to be part of an early hymn or song, according to many scholars. It seems to me that an argument can be made to apply all three designations to the elect since they are the direct contextual reference in verse 10 - Jason Brown 04-25-2012]

However, the point is, that it is manifestly possible that those with an "overthrown faith" were deceived into believing "another gospel" for a time. The mere possibility of this reality (however short a duration of deception) is enough to prove it is erroneous to make intellectual apprehension of the doctrine and knowledge of the gospel synonymous with Biblical faith.

Garrett states:

"So, from what I have already said, Jason must prove two things.  He must prove that "the faith" is not equated with "the truth," but refers to the action or state of believing.  Second, he must show that these men were certainly believed by Paul to have been truly regenerated.  If he cannot prove these things, then all his deductions based upon this unproven premise cannot be accepted. "


Garrett argues that the "faith" that is overthrown in 2 Timothy 2:18 cannot be proved to be the believer's subjective faith but the body of doctrine that constitutes the true gospel. That's interesting, but not cogent. Are the words synonymous in the passage? Hardly. Aletheia versus pistis. Now, he should know as I know in debating many Primitive Baptists who exegete the faith of Romans 3 and 4 as God's faith in Christ, that pistis is interchangeably rendered faith and belief in the New Testament in contexts of subjective belief. Jude 3's "faith" is pistis also, and like he says, it could be rendered aletheia there, as it is designated with the definite article 'ho'. 2 Timothy 2:18's pistis is modified by the prepositional phrase 'of some', which proves that it cannot be the system of truth of the gospel, as it would only be so to the "some" under consideration, which would be absurd and backward of the objective reality/truth of the gospel. The pistis of this passage is manifestly subjective belief by use of the prepositional phrase 'of some'.

Next, I want to observe that Garrett's line of argument here is not only completely specious, as can already be noted above by his missing the obvious modification of 'faith/pistis' in 2:18 by the definite, therefore, subjective group 'some', but it also undermines his own position.

Garrett states:

"So, when Paul spoke of some having "the faith" of their profession "overthrown," he is talking about them having their set of beliefs overthrown, their religion, what they own as being "the (religious or theological) truth."  The Greek word for "truth" denotes what is"real," or "reality," of what is genuine, what is not a falsehood or non-reality."


Let's assume for a moment Garrett's erroneous contention that pistis and aletheia were synonymous in this text, what does Garrett suppose is the object of their profession, once the body of truth of the "faith" has been overthrown? Garrett has walked right into my very point! Once a person concedes that intellectually, the truth of the gospel can be overthrown, what possible cognitive and rational basis can there be for one's personal faith? By making this distinction in the text, Garrett undermines the consistency of his own view that personal faith has as it's object the propositional truth of the gospel.

[ My argument is not very clear here. What I am basically arguing is that making the 'faith of some' the objective body of doctrinal truth in the New Testament, seems to make it very clear that verse 25 surely could refer to children of God, as Paul there refers to repentance to the acknowledgement of this truth. It implies they at one time acknowledged it intellectually. Jason Brown 04-25-2012]

Garrett stated:

"Jason argues that those professing Christians, such as Hymenaeus and Philetus, of whom Paul speaks, and who had "erred" in the foundational truth of the Christian religion about the doctrine of the resurrection, and who's "faith" was "overthrown," were nevertheless clearly regenerated.  But, where does he get his proof that they were genuinely regenerated?  Or, genuine believers of the gospel?  Does Jason not merely assume it and then base his whole line of reasoning on that assumption?  Is there anything in the context that would suggest that these were viewed as having been certainly regenerated?  Further, if Jason cannot first prove that they were definitely regenerated, then all his reasoning upon his premise is to be rejected."

When 2 Timothy 2:18,19 refers to the faith of some being overthrown, it is not Hymenaeus and Philetus that are the direct reference - they're the ones doing the 'overthrowing'! They're the ones teaching Gnosticism. They are the false ministers in the church of God that are vessels of dishonor.

The whole context of this chapter is a context of Paul's pastoral exhortations to Timothy. It doesn't appear like Garrett is keeping this in mind. The text of verse 21 defines in the context what Paul means by a vessel of honor; it is a minister set apart by God to endure all things for the elect's sake (vs. 10). The context of purging oneself is addressed to Timothy as an exhortation from Paul not to listen or be affected by the false teachers, just as Paul just commanded Timothy in verse 15 to study to show himself approved unto God, and in verse 16 to shun profane and vain babblings (which prompted this anti-Gnosticism rant from Paul), and right after verse 21 Paul tells Timothy in verse 22 to flee youthful lusts. Paul is in a dialogue with Timothy about being a pastor.

I never argued that Paul believed for certain that anyone was regenerated that had their faith overthrown. He simply doesn't know. The Lord knows them that are his, and PERADVENTURE God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (verse 25). Isn't it manifest that for God to give someone repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, means they acknowledged it before? Maybe I'm just simple Simon...

Garrett stated:

"So, from what I have already said, Jason must prove two things.  He must prove that "the faith" is not equated with "the truth," but refers to the action or state of believing.  Second, he must show that these men were certainly believed by Paul to have been truly regenerated.  If he cannot prove these things, then all his deductions based upon this unproven premise cannot be accepted."

The first has easily been demonstrated. The second is a false requirement. All I have to prove is that Paul didn't know, and the possibility itself proves that gospel knowledge should not be confused with trust in God. The possibility is easily established in 2:13, which even Gill allowed as shown above, and in 2:25 by Paul saying that peradventure God will give them repentance to the state of acknowledging the truth they once had.

Addendum Causa Sine Qua Non

One other quote of Gill on Eternal Justification to prove that Gill's view was inconsistent with equating gospel knowledge with the faith given in regeneration:

"It deserves regard and attention, that the saints under the Old Testament, were justified by the same righteousness of Christ, as those under the New, and that before the sacrifice was offered up, the satisfaction given, and the everlasting righteousness brought in; for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins that were past, and his death was for the redemption of transgressions under the first Testament, #Ro 3:25 Heb 9:15.Now if God could, and actually did, justify some, three or four thousand years before the righteousness of Christ was actually wrought out, taking his Son's word and bond as their Surety, and in a view of his future righteousness; why could he not, and why may it not be thought he did, justify all his elect from eternity, upon the word and bond of their Surety, and on the basis of his future righteousness, which he had engaged to work out, and which he full well knew he would most certainly work out? and if there is no difficulty in conceiving of the one, there can be none in conceiving of the other."

My line of reasoning here equally destroys Garrett's position as well as Gill's, if Gill truly made the true faith of regeneration equal to gospel knowledge.

How can gospel knowledge of our New Testament era be equated with the faith given in the effectual call of the Old Testament Saints? Were all the regenerate under the Old Testament taught intellectual knowledge of the gospel as we have it today directly by God? This seems absurd as it would supplant the place of the "Old" Testament in which the future Messiah was known nebulously (at least in terms of intellectual knowledge) only by types and shadows. Jesus Christ is obviously never referred to as plainly in the Old Testament as he appears in the New Testament; otherwise Paul is misleadingly redundant to say that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and it would make the Old Testament fully moot as "revelation" because God had directly revealed in actual intellectual, gospel knowledge just as we have today far more than a purposeless Old Testament could hope to reveal.

Surely this line of reasoning shows the folly of equating gospel, intellectual knowledge with the fundamental trust in God that embraces whatever special revelation is available.

Causa Sine Qua Non

Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/jason-browns-latest.html

Garrett stated:

"No, Garrett does not ignore any of it. It is Jason who ignores what Gill said in that section, as I have shown. The section does not show that Gill contradicted himself. Rather, the contradiction is in Jason's head. Gill gave us what was a theological distinction but then concludes by saying - "but though the scriptures are clear in ascribing regeneration to the utility of the gospel" (paraphrase). He clearly contrasts the scriptural view of regeneration with the theological. He did state that the view that makes regeneration into two kinds was not scriptural, which I take to mean that it was not the view of Gill. Why would we think that Gill would not believe the view he called the scriptural view?"

The part that Garrett paraphrases from Gill is:

"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": (Gal. 3:2), that is, by the preaching of the law, or by the preaching of the gospel? by the latter, no doubt."

Gill is simply arguing here that a separation between the work of the spirit apart from the word does not readily appear from Scripture, not that such a separation is not logically necessary. Let us notice his comments just preceding this:

"..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."

Here Gill argues that the instrumentality of the word is in relation to drawing forth the principle of grace infused by the Spirit alone, not that the instrumentality of the word is to be confused with directly creating the principle of grace. Gill argues that regeneration logically precedes gospel faith in the context of regeneration broadly defined.

Where did Gill clearly state in this context that the strict view of regeneration was not his own? It is clearly incorporated by Gill here, not controverted. He is not divorcing the Word from the Spirit, but giving priority to the Spirit in the initial creative act. Obviously he is avoiding the contradiction of Garrett of giving equal primacy to Word and Spirit in the creative act, which cannot be construed from Gill here.

Gill is not consistent with Primitive Baptists today that assert that God regenerates apart from the word, but Gill is consistent with Primitive Baptists in viewing the Spirit's primacy in the creation of the new man.

I point out to the reader that, though Garrett affirms regeneration is by both Word and Spirit, he does not view the Word as preached only by man, he views the word as also preached directly by God per Gal. 3:8 and 1 Thess. 4:9. The New Testament does not grant the liberty to affirm that the word as preached by man is necessary for the new creation of God in regeneration. Gill's commentary on this text allows for this logically as well.

Garrett has stated that John Gill was consistent on all points of doctrine pertaining to salvation.

I want to demonstrate that Gill's view of Eternal Justification is not consistent with viewing an intellectual, gospel faith as synonymous with the faith given in regeneration.

Reference:  http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=354

First, Gill did not view the faith given in regeneration to be the means of conferring justification or the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Gill did not view the faith of regeneration to be unto eternal life, or the basis of the vital union between Christ and the elect. Rather, it was an evidence of the elect's eternal Justification in Jesus Christ.

Gill states:

"...as Mr. Baxter {5} himself argues, "If faith is the instrument of our justification, it is the instrument either of God or man; not of man, for justification is God's act; he is the sole Justifier, #Ro 3:26 man doth not justify himself: nor of God, for it is not God that believes": nor is it a "causa sine qua non", as the case of elect infants shows; it is not in any class of causes whatever; but it is the effect of justification:..."

The essential element that should be gleaned here is that Gill teaches that faith is not a cause that, the absence of which, would prohibit the Justification of the elect, as in the case of elect infants.

Gill then logically extends this thought to elect and effectually called adults:

"Faith adds nothing to the "esse" only to the "bene esse" of justification; it is no part of, nor any ingredient in it; it is a complete act in the eternal mind of God, without the being or consideration of faith, or any foresight of it; a man is as much justified before as after it, in the account of God; and after he does believe, his justification does not depend on his acts of faith; for though "we believe not, yet he abides faithful"; that is, God is faithful to his covenant engagements with his Son, as their Surety, by whose suretyship-righteousness they are justified; but by faith men have a comfortable sense, perception and apprehension of their justification, and enjoy that peace of soul which results from it; it is by that only, under the testimony of the divine Spirit, that they know their interest in it, and can claim it, and so have the comfort of it."

Gill plainly uses 2 Timothy 2:13 to prove that regenerate children of God, lacking some measure or confidence of intellectual faith, are nevertheless possessors of the imputed righteousness of Christ, which Gill also allows in his commentary on this text.

Gill teaches here clearly that there are only temporal blessings to be had from the faith given in regeneration. Eternal life is not conferred by it; rather, faith is the temporal evidence of the elects inheritance in Christ.

Sure sounds like a "Hardshell" here! Most Primitive Baptists teach this Eternal view of Justification.

Now, of course, Gill taught that the elect would be regenerated and effectually called in time by the gospel. But it is not clear to me at all how his doctrine here squares with his views of the nature of the faith implanted at the effectual call and the nature of the faith persevered. Gill at times seems to clearly assert a gospel, intellectual faith as necessary to regeneration and perseverance, but that view is controverted both in the case of infants and the regenerate who are in a state of unbelief.

Garrett on "Hardshell Secession"

On June 15, 2010 Garrett posted this blog post on the Baptist "Gadfly":  http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2010/06/seceder-hardshells.html


Garrett fancies himself a Baptist Socrates, no doubt, but I remind the occasional reader that Socrates also depicted himself as a midwife in relation to individuals understanding the truth. A Gadfly's stinger is not congenial to the gentle touch of a midwife in relation to coming to the knowledge of truth. Truth is arduous enough in the "bearing" process without adding to the pain by "stinging".

Concerning the blog post of Garrett above, he argues that Henry Sheets in, "A History of the Liberty Baptist Association From Its Organization In 1832 to 1906", establishes the Missionary Baptists as representing the original position of the Baptists on Missionary methods, Sunday Schools, etc.

First, this "history" is published from the perspective of a Missionary Baptist in 1854 and 1906 after the split had occurred, so the author could be accused of propagating a revisionist history after the same manner that Garrett accuses Hassell.

Second, this history does not consider the influence among the Baptists of Fuller and Carey who represented a departure in missionary method and theology from an older generation of Baptists. The presence of missionary work and methods in Baptist associations like the Kehukee or Baltimore before the Missionary split does not prove that such methods were not recognized as modern innovations among Baptists.

Perhaps Baptists like Elder James Osbourne initially could be viewed as not following their conscience when they went along with Fuller inspired missionary trappings, but they cannot be proved to have heartily endorsed these innovations, as they did eventually repudiate them as inconsistent with the original Particular Baptists of England. It may not even be inconsistent, save in name only, for Osbourne to have allowed himself to be designated a "Home Missionary", as this designation effectively refers to what every present, faithful Primitive Baptist may do in their interactions of daily life in America.

I have stated before that John Ryland's statement to a young Carey concerning the necessity of the conversion  of the heathen was indicative of Ryland's rejection of the view that the gospel was the means of eternal salvation of the heathen. Garrett argued against this by suggesting that Ryland's remark was eschatological rather than soteriological in nature. If this were so, it would demonstrate that Ryland did not view the Great Commission as given to the Apostles as unfulfilled. The most that could be said in reference to his view of the Commission as applied to the Church, was that the Church was not at liberty to pursue mission work on unqualified grounds, and would indicate that Ryland was opposed to indiscriminate missionary work until such time as a sign was given by a second Pentecost.

Fuller's publication in 1782, "The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation", marked a turning point among Baptists. The work was completed in 1775 only 4 years after the death of John Gill. Fuller was responsible for the Missionary movement among Baptists, not only in doctrine, but in practice by establishing the Baptist Missionary Society in Kettering in 1792. Fuller certainly did not espouse his doctrines and practices as consistent with Baptists of the 18th century, as he stated that what he defended was contrary to the Baptists of the 18th century. He claimed that he was consistent with Bunyan and Baptist writers in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The difficulty is that, as far as history seems to indicate, the first Baptists of England seemed to be Arminian, not some illogical mixture of Calvinism and Arminianism as Fuller's doctrine was.

Seeing that the earliest Baptists of England were Arminian, far earlier than the London Confession, are the "original" Baptists Arminian? This surely demonstrates the illegitimacy of solely appealing to history for identity. No, the original, Biblically faithful Baptists of England were the Particular Baptists we are bound to judge by the canon of Holy Scripture alone.

Garrett Again on Omissions

Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/jasons-last-stand.html

Garrett stated:

"Jason Brown's latest posting was in reply to my posting titled "Jason's Omissions."Ironically, he is still omitting responding to my arguments! And, what does he do? He basically says - "respond to the new things I bring up." But, should not a person respond to all the arguments of the affirmative before bringing up new arguments? It is very telling how Jason continues to fail to respond to Gill's words about a person not being more regenerated than another, etc. His refusal to acknowledge the words of Gill destroy his misrepresentation of Gill and he does not know what to do except to ignore those words! "

I am not ignoring anything. I have answered Garrett's accusations of "omissions" on all counts. He accused me of not addressing Matt. 23 a few posts ago, and I responded. Garrett likes to erroneously bring attention to what I have supposedly "omitted" so that he can take the focus off of the substance of my rejoinders, which he himself shirks. Why don't we stick to substance rather than complaints of methodology? As we shall see, and have seen, his criticism of "omission" is either empty or not applicable because I have not argued that Gill shared views in all points consistent with Primitive Baptists of today.

How have I misrepresented Gill? I have simply interpreted him at his word in, "Of Regeneration", in distinguishing regeneration from being "born again" or "begotten". Beebe and Trott's view surely can be traced back here. I do not wish to labor the point, but it is reasonable to take Gill at his word in viewing regeneration as a specific act of God but also designating the whole process of man's coming to intellectual faith in Jesus.

Gill's idea of one man not being "more born again" than another hardly destroys "my position" any more than it would destroy Gill, for I am simply stating Gill's stated position. At most, any problem here would only prove a contradiction in Gill, as his views as I have stated them are clearly presented by him. Notice Garrett would rather ignore this section of , "Of Regeneration", claiming that Gill didn't really believe what he published, which, ironically also indicts Gill of contradiction because he didn't state the view as not his own. So, even if Garrett were correct, it would only demonstrate that Gill was contradictory - a claim he proves, but was at one time disavowing.

According to Gill, there is no logical possibility that those regenerated would fail to also come to intellectual faith in Jesus, as the effectual call is placed in the category of broad regeneration or being born again. Gill's position has no problem harmonizing with everyone being regenerated the same because his broad view of regeneration entails gospel conversion.

I have no problem admitting this because I was never trying to prove that Gill was fully consistent with Primitive Baptists. I was simply showing that Gill taught immediate regeneration, which I think is clear from Gill's own words. I was proving this to show that views of immediate regeneration did not originate among the Baptists in 1832 with Beebe and Trott. In respect to that claim of Garrett and Bob Ross, that surely has been disproved as zealotry.

"First, it is not true that I did not engage Brown on Matt. 23 and Luke 11: 52. I overthrew his interpretation of those passages and I am content with it and see no need to respond to his rehashing. Concerning his comments in II Tim. 2, I see no need to respond. I certainly do disagree with his interpretation of that passage. But, I have better things to do than to correct Jason on everything. I also don't intend to drag out our discussion by my agreeing to review all that he writes in his blog. After all, I did not start my blog with the purpose of negating all that he writes. He did that."

Garrett's interpretation of Matt 23:13 and Luke 11:52 only works if we add to the word of God by placing "seem to" preceding "shut" and "hinder" in these texts. The texts do not read that way.

Garrett saw fit to respond in some fashion to everything else, why does he take exception to 2 Timothy 2? Sounds like he doesn't know how to completely explain this passage. I don't believe his excuse because he's seen fit to respond to everything I've written heretofore. He's never referenced it and I've used 2 Tim. 2:13 as a proof text in multiple posts. Indeed, when I wrestled with strict Calvinism some years ago, this is one of the passages that seemed irreconcilable.

I have never stated that I intended my blog to negate everything Garrett has written. I have expressly stated that I intended to object to certain excessive criticisms. That hardly implies everything. Garrett seems incapable of moderation, but interprets to extremes - not only history or theology, but my own statements as well. And he wonders why I suggest that he's guilty of overstatement!

"But, Jason never showed how my criticisms of the Hardshells were "excessive"! In fact, he even agreed early on that many of my criticisms of the Hardshells are valid! Even in the above citation Jason admits that "some present PB's are in error." Jason thinks I am exaggerating, but is Jason not rather minimalizing and trivializing? Is he not downplaying the seriousness of PB errors? Of course, Jason would have been more correct to say"nearly all" instead of "some." Nearly all Hardshells reject what their own forefathers taught about the necessity of conversion by the gospel! That such a conversion was the new birth and was a work that was effectual and irresistible! That the "obedience" brought about by the Spirit and the word in conversion was passive and certainly active."

Again, I have never stated that all of Garrett's criticisms were excessive. As to the excesses of his writing, I have shown that Garrett's depiction of the differences between Beebe and present PB's was inaccurate in making the difference one of gospel utility rather than Absolute Predestination. I have shown that Gill taught immediate regeneration and that Beebe was not the first Baptist to teach this idea in 1832. I have shown that Gill's view of James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, and 1 Cor. 4:15 in, "Of Regeneration", was one of the gospel drawing forth the principle of grace rather than depositing the principle of grace, which is the majority Primitive Baptist view on these texts. I have shown the folly of equating an intellectual, gospel faith with the fundamental faith that is the basis of the mystical union between Christ and the elect by 2 Tim. 2, Peter's denial of Christ and need of conversion, the unbelief of the resurrection of Christ by the disciples, and the logic implicit in Matt. 23:13 and Luke 11:52.

I am not obligated to negate all of Garrett's writing.

Garrett stated:

"Besides, why does Jason not tell us what faction he is identified with? I have repeatedly asked him to tell us about himself. Is Jason Brown his real name?"

Jason Brown is my real name. I am not an Elder, and I do not identify with a faction among the PB's. I was exposed to strict Calvinistic beliefs by my Father, so I began from that standpoint. He and my Uncle, Roy Brown, traveled much among the Primitive Baptists throughout the 80's. Perhaps Garrett may have even known him. They both embraced the "time salvation" paradigm, but came to reject it during the public ministry of Uncle Roy. My Father was not an Elder, but my Uncle Roy eventually left the PB's. I was present as a youngster when Kirk McClendon, another PB Elder who came to teach Calvinism, split the Church in Arlington, Texas in the early 90's. The Church was prevented from conference for months on the basis of individuals of McClendon's "camp" claiming to "not be at peace". McClendon and his group were finally narrowly excluded by a majority that contained one extra vote than McClendon's minority. I don't care much for factions.

If it weren't for the preaching of David Pyles when he came to preach in Arlington in 1997, I might have too eventually left the PB's. Elder Pyles seemed to navigate gracefully between the extremes of Calvinism and the practical universalism of many. I have a sermon he preached on VHS on Justification by faith that made a heavy impact on my mind. I didn't grasp all of the implications at the time (I was 17 and had just began to think meaningfully), but it provided a lot of clarity in subsequent years.

Garrett stated:

"Is that what today's Hardshells believe Jason? That all the elect who hear the gospel will be converted by it? Since the "historic" teaching of the first Hardshells affirmed that all the elect, when they hear the gospel, will believe it, and seeing how nearly all of today's Hardshells reject that proposition, how are they then "primitive"? Thanks for your help Jason! You have affirmed that most of today's Hardshells are not primitive! "

Primitive Baptists do believe it still. I'm not certain what the majority consensus is. You have extreme Calvinists still also. There are universalist extremes as well. Garrett's desire to paint the PB's one color is not accurate. Garrett was not the only rampant Calvinist that was or is among the Primitive Baptists, as I testify.

For my part, I agree with Garrett - and Hassell - that Primitive Baptists ought to fellowship Absoluters - not on the Absoluter's terms, perhaps - as that debate is mostly semantics, and Hassell was not of the view that a division was appropriate. And as Garrett has pointed out, some of the anti-missions faction of the Primitive Baptists taught gospel instrumentality, so it appears to me that fellowship was withdrawn from those with such views over time, as Watson complains of the "ultraists" accusing others within the anti-mission movement of Arminianism. Gospel instrumentality of the word was taken to be inconsistent with an opposition of Missionary Baptist methods, which is intuitive.

One thing I take to be erroneous in Garrett is his effort to call Primitive Baptists neither "original" or "primitive". The designation "Primitive" strictly refers to the Missions debate, as that is where it originated. This debate, as he concedes, was not over gospel utility. Now, he may be right to say that Baptists who taught gospel instrumentality ought to be able to call themselves Primitive Baptists, but only if they throw away the modern garb of missionary boards, tract societies, Sunday Schools, etc. On the basis of the subject of the Missionary division among the Baptists, present Primitive Baptists are wholly deserving of the appellation "Primitive".

Primitive Baptists who attempt to argue for the justification of the description "Primitive" on the basis of unchanged doctrinal purity are blind to history. There has certainly been an evolution or devolution (in Garrett's view) of doctrine within the Primitive Baptists in reaction to controversy. No doubt about that from a historical perspective.

The real question is, however, is this change a sharpened perspective thanks to controversy, or a dull one using the only canon to judge? Only an examination of the Scripture as the standard can determine this. The London Confession is not the standard.

"Omissions" Addressed

Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/jasons-omissions.html

Garrett stated:

"Further, Jason continues to prove what I have never denied. I have never denied that some old Baptists taught that a narrowly defined regeneration preceded full regeneration and conversion. I even mentioned how this was the belief of Andrew Fuller. But, none of these old Baptists were Hardshells, because they taught that conversion immediately followed regeneration, that regeneration only preceded conversion logically, but not chronologically. Jason chose not to respond to all this.  It was not until Beebe and Trott that regeneration and conversion became separated by a gap in time.  Yet even these first Hardshells did not deny that all the regenerated would be converted.  In fact, all the oldest articles of faith of the oldest Hardshell churches say - "all the elect will be regenerated and converted."

My blog is addressed to Garrett's excessive criticisms of the Primitive Baptists. I did not address some of his writing as to whether present PB's are historical in regard to teaching on conversion because I agree with Garrett here that some present PB's are in error. I stated this multiple times in past posts. All historic PB's believed that under the sound of the gospel as preached by man, the regenerate would be converted, as it is the nature of the regenerate to embrace the revelation available. Where Garrett and I disagree is in reference to the nature of this conversion. He argues that God's irresistible grace is at work, and I argue that conversion and belief in the gospel is a cooperative work of the Holy Spirit and the regenerated will of man much like progressive sanctification (which he also argues is by irresistible grace).

What is the key point for the purpose of my blog in showing the excesses of Garrett's criticisms and his errors, is Garrett's admission here that Gill did not teach or believe that a strict regeneration was in context in 1 Peter 1:23, James 1:18, and 1 Cor. 4:15. Though Garrett claims here that he has "never denied" that Gill taught this, it is a fact that Garrett claimed the opposite and attempts to appear like he has been consistent all along. To illustrate, Garrett stated:

"Gill, in the citation referenced by Jason, wherein he gives two kinds of "regeneration," is not giving HIS view or the view of scripture, which knows nothing of two kinds of"regeneration," but he is giving what is the view given in theological works by Calvinists in Gill's own time. Gill cites no scripture to show that certain passages, dealing with"regeneration" (being spiritually born or quickened), were referring to the narrowly defined kind of "regeneration."

The above quote was stated in this post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/jason-brown-vs-john-gill.html

Quite obviously Garrett did "deny" that Gill embraced this view, but he now admits the opposite. Gill did cite Scripture, if Garrett would have observed, in the same section in, "Of Regeneration", in Book 6 that I quoted in which Gill distinguishes regeneration from gospel conversion. I quoted it in my last post, but Gill argued that 1 John 3:9 is to be viewed  as regeneration proper - a kind of germination of the elect by an infusion of the principle of grace.

So what is the point? The point is that Garrett's view of Baptist history is guilty of a zealous overstatement. He is not in error in regard to some of the errors of modern PB's, but he is so eager to oppose that he is willing to twist and pervert Gill from his own published views if it seems to make modern PB's seem more ridiculous. It seems his spirit is wrong even if he has some truth.

Dear reader beware! You now have indication to view his writings with a healthy dose of skepticism, and I behoove all to put his statements to the test before believing every word.

Garrett spoke to my "omissions", but failed to realize that where he was most critical is where I am critical in regard to some modern PB's. Speaking of omissions, notice that Garrett wouldn't touch Matt. 23, Luke 11:52, or 2 Timothy 2 in response to my last post. When it comes to "thus sayeth the Lord", he seems to retreat.

What good is a history lesson if you can't answer objections in Holy Writ?

Garrett's Response 5.2

This post concerns Garrett's post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/browns-introduction-of-new-arguments.html

Garrett stated:

"First, it is to be noticed how Jason has stopped replying to my arguments and begins to make affirmative arguments.  Of course, I started this in the affirmative and Jason in the negative.  This is clear because he began his blog in order to negate my writings on hardshellism.  But, now he does not like the negative and wants to go into the affirmative mode.  Interesting and revealing, is it not?"


I have addressed this claim of Garrett. This is an illogical claim because these arguments support my negation of his view of regeneration being mediated through the gospel, and are expressly made in that context.

My point in bringing up Nicodemus was not to argue that it is a surety that he was born again, it was to illustrate the problem of gradual gospel belief. If gospel belief is instantaneous in regeneration, how does one explain the apparent gradual gospel belief in individuals who seem to come to faith in Christ slowly over a period of time?

A related point is illustrated in 2 Timothy 2:18,19, "Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his."

Now, it is apparent that if a mediated, intellectual gospel belief is equated with faith, which is obtained and necessary in regeneration, it would of necessity persist as the basis of the vital union between Christ and the regenerate. Here, in this chapter of 2 Timothy 2, the inconsistency of this view is manifest, for the text proves that it is possible that the regenerate are in a vital union with Christ, though their intellectual gospel belief has been overthrown. This would prove that it is incorrect to equate faith with mediated gospel knowledge. It surely cannot be advocated that those who deny the resurrection of Christ could be said to believe the gospel, but you have here in this chapter the possibility in the mind of Paul that some regenerate children of God have been led astray by false teachers into heresy.

It is necessary to recognize that Paul is admonishing Timothy in his ministry to children of God that may be in error. I call the reader's attention to several places in this chapter (2 Timothy 2) to show that Paul is not pronouncing finally on the eternal destiny of those that have been carried away into Gnosticism.

Verse 12 and 13 indicate this in that Paul shows in context of enduring all things for the elect's sake, "if we deny him, he also will deny us", right next to, "if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." Verse 19 places the certainty of the knowledge of the identity of the regenerate in the mind of God, not in the mind of Paul, as the LORD knoweth them that are his. Verse 21 shows that Paul's exhortation is for the young Timothy to purge himself from the influence of false teachers that are vessels of dishonor in the church of God in verse 20, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, not that those overthrown in their faith are certainly vessels of dishonor.

Lastly, verse 25 and 26 make it obvious that those overthrown in their faith are possibly regenerate children of God, as Paul states that it is possible that they will repent and acknowledge the truth of the gospel. The children of God can be taken captive of the devil from the intellectual truth of gospel faith, as Peter was nearly sifted like wheat, but can possibly recover themselves, as those that are converted from the error of their ways (James 5:19,20).

If gospel knowledge is equated to faith, Garrett is forced in one of two directions in this chapter: (1) those with an overthrown faith were of a certainty never truly born again, or (2) it is possible that regenerate children of God can lose their actual faith and become unregenerate. (2) is manifestly denied by his adherence to Calvinism. (1) is denied because 2:13 shows those with an overthrown faith to be in vital union with Christ, and 2:25 refers to repentance to orthodoxy, which establishes the possibility that those with an overthrown faith were regenerate children of God. While it is a possibility in the mind of Paul, but not a certainty, that these with an overthrown faith were never truly born again, it is clearly possible to him that they were deceived and may repent.

This establishes that an intellectual, gospel faith is not the fundamental basis of the vital union of the regenerate with Christ, and if it be not the fundamental basis after regeneration, neither can it be the fundamental basis in regeneration in the first instance.

 Garrett asked:

"By the way, let Jason answer this question - "if good seed is sown into good ground, will it always and necessarily produce fruit or a plant?"

It will always produce some degree of fruit or a plant, but it may not be the towering tree in the kingdom of God in which the fowls of the air will choose to lodge.

Garrett stated:

"Jason next brings up the case of Peter once again.  But, once again he fails to prove Hardshell premises from references to the case of Peter.  Jason says that Peter increased in his faith and understanding and from this fact wants to enquire as to the time when his belief was equal to his regeneration.  In Matthew 16 Peter says "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."  John says "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."  (I John 5: 1)  Thus, Peter was born again in Matthew 16.  Therefore, since one cannot become unborn, or lose his regeneration life, his future need of"conversion" was not his regeneration, but of his conversion from false notions and beliefs.  But, where has Jason ever shown that Peter was born again while without faith and understanding."

He admits that Peter was born again but required conversion from "false notions and beliefs", and then asks, "where has Jason shown that Peter was born again while without faith and understanding". He contradicts himself in admitting that Peter had false beliefs, but was born again! I have never argued that in this gospel era, regenerate individuals would remain in a state of being completely without faith and understanding, so I assume Garrett means born again with some measure of faith and understanding, which has always been the position I advocated, and which Garrett concedes in contradiction!

In relation to that, Garrett contradicts himself by admitting that Peter had false beliefs, yet that he was born again with true beliefs. Peter may have declared that Christ was the Savior in Matt. 16:16, but in Matt. 16:21 Peter tries to talk Jesus out of being Savior - obviously Peter was unclear on the truth of the gospel. Peter's denial of Christ was a denial of the intimacy of Christ as the Lord of Peter's life. It was a declaration of no intimate knowledge of Christ (unbelief) the converse of which would be a public profession of intimate knowledge of Jesus Christ (gospel faith). Peter effectively contradicted Matt. 16:16 when he denied Christ, yet Peter was born again.

Garrett stated:

"Jason, from the above words, seems to now want to discuss the relationship of predestination and the divine decrees to regeneration, justification, calling, sanctification, perseverance, etc., and so we will follow him in this, though we should first finish our debate on whether the Hardshells are primitive Baptists or not, and on their denial of means in salvation and of the necessity of faith for salvation."

No, Garrett is incorrect here. The charge is that the error of a view of soteriology that necessitates moral obedience in the children of God is erroneous in the same way as necessitating gospel faith/conversion/obedience as a part of the irresistible grace of God is in regeneration. Did not all the disciples reject the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus given to them by the women reporting the empty tomb? Were the disciples not regenerated until they saw and believed that Christ had risen?

Garrett stated:

"What saith the scriptures?  "Whoever has this hope within him (whoever is regenerated) purifies (continually) himself."  (I John 3: 3)  "Whoever is born of God keeps himself."  (I John 5: 18) "

Did Samson continually purify himself and keep himself? Hardly. To describe Samson as rambunctious seems an understatement, as he appears to be the Conan the Barbarian of the Old Testament. It seems improbable that a Judge of Israel and Nazirite, holy unto Yahweh (Numbers 6:8), was an unregenerate man. The point is, there is room in "keeps himself" and "purifies himself" for backsliding - even severe backsliding that ruins a regenerated persons life (Samson, David) or results in the termination of their life (King Josiah). How does an irresistible grace within the lives of David and Samson allow for their sins?

Garrett stated:

"But, how can Christian faith, love, and hope be produced in this divine birth apart from the Father teaching and convincing of gospel truth?  Further, he either does this by personally teaching these things directly, or through gospel preaching."

So we see that Garrett admits that God regenerates independently of the preached gospel. He concedes that Paul teaches this doctrine in 1 Thess. 4:9. If this is true, why does he argue that regeneration is only mediated through the preached word when he plainly concedes that God regenerates directly? This is an important inconsistency, for it is a contradiction inasmuch as he has opposed the doctrine of immediate regeneration. I certainly do not disagree with him that God teaches faith, hope, and love directly, but would add that there is no reason to insist that God ordinarily teaches this by gospel preaching because of this 1 Thess text.

Garrett stated:

"Jason objects to my affirming that men, in scripture, are said to hinder others from being saved.  But, he does not respond to the scriptural proofs I gave.  Jason offers no scriptures to justify his rejection of the scriptures that I presented or to justify his propositions.  Did Jason tell us what was the "kingdom" of Matthew 23? and of what it means not to "escape the damnation of Hell"?  Is that some kind of temporal punishment, brother Jason?"

There is no difficulty in Matthew 23. Matthew 23:13's kingdom of heaven cannot be eternal life, as the wicked rulers of Israel have no power to hinder the eternal inheritance of the elect. No view of the wicked rulers of Israel hindering the eternal life of the elect can be harmonized with God's decree of the elect to be regenerated. Either their hindering is not actually a hindrance to eternal life in that what they are hindering is not the decreed time that God effectually called (in which case the text is duplicitous), or they are actually capable of hindering God's decree of the particular time of the effectual call (in which case the effectual call is not effectual).

Therefore, the kingdom of God here is the spiritual kingdom of God that Christ established on earth that men enter into by adherence to the teaching of Jesus. In the entering of this spiritual kingdom, they can be hindered by false teaching.

Now, it is true that failing to enter into the spiritual kingdom of Christ is not consistent with having been regenerated, as he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. In Matt. 13:37-42 the tares are outside of the kingdom and are eternally damned. Therefore, it should be taught that submitting to the gospel of Christ is the only way to inherit the fullness of the Kingdom of God on earth, which is eternal life. Those that fail to enter in are generally damned, as they evidence unbelief characteristic of the unregenerate. So it is not inconsistent to find in Matthew 23:15 that proselytes of the Pharisees who are not in the spiritual kingdom of Christ are twice the child of hell.

What must be kept in view, however, is that Matt. 23 in context is a castigation of the Pharisees. There is no real exegetical connection between verse 13 and 15 in terms of the proselytes of verse 15 being the same men kept from the kingdom in verse 13. The Pharisees did not need to 'compass sea and land' to find a follower of Jesus to pervert, the followers of Jesus were right under their noses. By use of "compassing sea and land", the context is not of verse 13, but of the hypocritical religious zeal of the Pharisees and Scribes. This religious zeal caused them to shut up the kingdom of heaven from men and in their own work of proselytizing to make men worse in propagating wickedness than they would have been. Arguing that an eternal context is present in both texts is unjustified because the context is first: the wickedness of the rulers of Jerusalem.

Verse 33 is clear that these wicked rulers are of the non-elect and will be eternally damned.

Garrett stated:

"My explanation is in accord with the prior beliefs of the old Baptists.  Jason's is not.  They believed that 1) The predestined time for God to regenerate/effectually call could not be hindered or prevented, and 2) People in scripture are said to be instruments in saving some and in hindering others from being saved.  Jason thinks that one cannot hold both views because they contradict and therefore he believes that one of these propositions must be false.  First, in response, where is the justification for believing that our ability to reconcile biblical propositions is the deciding factor for accepting them as truth?  Can we comprehend the mind of God or fathom the mysteries of theology?"

Notice how Garrett concedes the contradictory nature of his interpretation of Luke 11:52 and Matt. 23:13. He even seems to think of it as irreconcilable. Now, in regard to comprehending mysteries of theology, he is presuming that this issue is a mystery, which is obviously something I do not concede. He's begging the question here. Observe how Garrett would rather embrace a contradiction under a flag of piousness than accept a biblical alternative that is logically compelling. If this be true, how can he be convinced of any truth? How can he logically argue against the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons when they will take the same "moral high road" and cloak their irrationality in a pious embrace of contradiction?

Garrett stated:

"I showed how "perspective" is important in reconciling seemingly conflicting statements in the word of God."


His idea of "perspective" is a whopping self-contradiction. If true, it has the effect of making the hindering or shutting up in Luke 11:52 and Matt. 23:13 not really a hindering or shutting up of eternal life. He stutters in his "perspective" treatment because he claimed that these texts actually prove that men can hinder other men from eternal salvation so that they are not saved as early as they could have been. Blatant contradiction! Garrett stated, "2) People in scripture are said to be instruments in saving some and in hindering others from being saved".

Which is it? Are men actually hindering or aren't they? There is no third possibility; regardless of perspective, the men are actually hindering eternal salvation or they aren't. If they aren't actually hindering, Garrett is blatantly contradicting the text according to which it states that men do hinder eternal life from others. If they are hindering, Garrett is blatantly contradicting the decree of God in regeneration.

Remember that Garrett is trying to argue that the kingdom of heaven or the destination of those that would go in of Luke 11:52 is eternal life. When he states that the hindering and shutting up of these texts does not actually keep the elect from eternal life, it follows by resistless logic in the text that the hindering and shutting up of these texts is not of eternal life.

On the other hand, if Garrett believes, like he says he does, that the texts refer to eternal life, he must accept that men can actually hinder eternal life in contradiction to God's decree of a regeneration that includes gospel belief.

His idea of perspective does not change that there are logically only the two possibilities above. His idea of perspective changes the text, nothing else, to: "seem to shut up" and "seem to hinder" eternal life. But is this really a valid third position? Not at all, because it is simply a denial that these texts are in a context of eternal life, which returns us above.

Anyone could see he's trying to pull "the fastest gun in the west" routine, where Garrett can pull his six-gun out so fast he doesn't appear to move at all.

This exercise shows that there is an error in Garrett's theology because it will not harmonize to these texts without contradiction.
 
Garrett stated:

"Jason wrote:

"Garrett effectively emptied the "hindering" of this text of any content whatsoever. So, again, what is hindered here if it is not eternal salvation?" 



That is false, for I clearly showed that the "hindering from entering the kingdom of God"was hindering from eternal salvation, of entering the "everlasting kingdom of our Lord."  (I Peter 1: 11)  I also showed how this failure to enter the kingdom at the last day was connected with failure to "escape the damnation of Hell."  Thus, this substantiates and justifies my interpretation and destroys Jason's proposition that says one cannot, in any sense, or from any perspective, keep  another from being saved."

Note his self-contradiction because he does not actually believe that they can hinder the eternal salvation of the elect. He did not show that Matt. 23:33 referred to the same men kept from the kingdom. It is obviously the rulers of Jerusalem in context, the ones that did the shutting up of the kingdom. Read the whole chapter and examine the contextual flow. It is plainly the wicked Jews that were rulers over Israel in verse 29 that are condemned in verse 33. Is this an example of faithful biblical hermeneutics? Examine verse 37, those wicked Jewish rulers that killed the prophets are contrasted to the children of Jerusalem that Jesus would have taken into his bosom. This same contrast is observed in verse 13. The condemnation of Jesus is plainly reserved for the leaders and teachers of Jerusalem, not her children.

Garrett stated:

"He will, of course, in order to try and be consistent with himself, affirm that conversion is not the "work of God" as is "regeneration."  Is conversion the "work of God" brother Jason?"

It is the work of God because God works within by His Spirit both to will and to do of His good pleasure, but men are not divinely coerced to embrace the gospel - it is their desire to because of the change wrought by regeneration.

Garrett's Response 4.2 and 2.2

This post concerns Garrett's post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/does-jason-agree-with-beebe-trott.html

and his post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/jason-brown-vs-john-gill.html

Garrett stated:

"It is ironic that Jason accuses me of attempting to change course (reorient the discussion) in our debate.  First, because he has himself shifted from the negative to the affirmative.  Second, he himself, in the above words, attempts to reorient the discussion!"


In regard to the first charge, if I affirm a "spirit alone" view of regeneration in order to negate Garrett's view of gospel means in regeneration, how have I shifted from negating the proposition that regeneration is mediated through the preached word? I am not inconsistent with a negative stance to any proposition if I broach issues the logical result of which lead to the negation of any debated proposition. In any case, even if I were forbidden from this method, I've done this from the beginning of my blog when I argued, in my first post, that John 3:8 establishes a model of the new birth that is without means. Why is he only now objecting? His objection to my methodology is entirely without merit, and appears arbitrary.

Touching his second point, that I have reoriented the debate from gospel means, this is false because I argued from the start that Garrett's claims about the differences between Beebe and Trott with modern PB's were inaccurate in making that difference one of gospel utility. They, like modern PB's, distinguished between regeneration and gospel conversion. The difference was that Beebe and Trott necessitated gospel conversion. It is the necessitation of gospel conversion, which is an attribute of Absolute Predestination, that is the key difference.

Garrett stated:

"Also, Beebe and Trott did not teach the same thing as did Dr. Gill!  Dr. Gill, as I have shown, did not believe in two kinds of regeneration, nor that any kind of regeneration occurred apart from the gospel. He equated "regeneration" with being "quickened" and said that a man was not made alive spiritually until he heard and believed the gospel.  So, Garrett did not make a "mistake," but it is Jason who is greatly mistaken.  Did Gill believe that regeneration was a separate experience from conversion or that any man could be said to be regenerated who was not converted?"


John Gill stated in "The Cause of God and Truth, "whence it follows, that regeneration is rather a preparation for the right hearing of the word than the hearing of the word is a preparation for regeneration." Since Gill said this as a summary of the Parable of the Sower and the "good ground" is designated in that parable apart from the gospel truth sown, it follows logically that a separation (at least logical separation) exists.

Gill also stated in his Body of Divinity, "The new man is created in righteousness and. true holiness; the principle of holiness is then formed, from whence holy actions spring. The grace of repentance then appears. The stony, hard, impenitent heart being taken away, and a heart of flesh susceptible of Divine impressions being given; on which to follow a sense of sin, sorrow for it of a godly sort, and repentance unto life and salvation, which is not to be repented of; faith in Christ, which is not of a man’s self, but the gift of God, and the operation of the Spirit of God, is now brought into exercise, which being an effect, is an evidence of regeneration."


Obviously Gill here makes regeneration quite distinct from gospel faith. Gospel faith is "brought into exercise as an evidence of regeneration". Another quote to illustrate from Body of Divinity, "It [regeneration - JB] is also signified by "seed" (1 John 3:9). "Whosoever is born of God—his seed remaineth in him"; which is the principle of grace infused in regeneration; and as seed contains in it virtually, all that after proceeds from it, the blade, stalk, ear, and full corn in the ear; so the first principle of grace implanted in the heart, seminally contains all the grace which afterwards appears, and all the fruits, effects, acts, and exercises of it."


I'm not at all clear where Garrett is justified exclaiming (he uses exclamation marks) that Gill did not teach what any reasonable mind can see that he did teach from these passages. In the very best light for Garrett's position, Gill is highly contradictory on this point. Nevertheless, his contradictions are enough to prove that views of this nature hardly originated with the Primitive Baptists circa. 1832.


To any honest mind, however, the seeming contradictions in Gill are not so. What they are the result of is Gill defining the word 'regeneration' in two ways. I've stated this before, but I'll quote again from Gill where he makes this plain at the beginning of the section in Book 6, "Of Regeneration": "Regeneration may be considered either more largely, and then it includes with it effectual calling, conversion, and sanctification: or more strictly, and then it designs the first principle of grace infused into the soul; which makes it a fit object of the effectual calling, a proper subject of conversion, and is the source and spring of that holiness which is gradually carried on in sanctification, and perfected in heaven."


What is Gill doing by making this distinction? The strict definition plainly excludes the effectual call and conversion, as he states as such. The language of the "first principle of grace infused into the soul" is repeated in the remainder of his writing in this section, so it cannot be claimed that he is not referencing it later.




What Gill seems to argue in the later passage that deals with 1 Peter 1:23, James 1:18, and 1 Cor. 4:15 is that the instrumentality of the gospel is in context of his broad definition of regeneration, not a strict view. While Gill still plainly sees the above passages to be referring to the gospel, and not Christ as the Logos, he nevertheless understands the instrumentality of the word to regeneration to be one of drawing out the exercise of the principle of grace first implanted at regeneration, not regeneration itself. This is all consistent with the distinction he makes in the first place at the beginning of Book 6 (quoted above).


When I have stated that Gill did not change his mind, I was referring to the view of Christ as the Logos. I still think he entertained this view as plausible, or he wouldn't have mentioned it. But that question is not central to the instrumentality of the gospel as fleshed out by Gill. He still theologically divided strict regeneration from gospel conversion. I mean, he did so quite plainly when he distinguished broad regeneration from strict regeneration.


Garrett claimed in one of his rebuttals that Gill made this distinction because it was a popular one among Calvinistic theologians of his day, and prompted me to answer where was the proof that Gill believed it. I'm somewhat shocked by the nature of this response. Why should I need to prove that Gill endorsed a view that was obviously set forth in a book he published? Surely the "onus" is on Garrett to produce evidence showing that Gill included this distinction, yet disbelieved it. What kind of defamation of Gill's academic and Christian integrity is this?


Garrett stated:


"Gill defined the "begetting" of these passages as dealing with a narrowly theologically defined sense! Besides, the main issue is this - did Gill believe that any of the initially regenerated would not instantaneously be broadly regenerated at the same time? That is what Jason needs to do! He needs to show that Gill omitted first stage regeneration from the above passages."


This is not the "main" issue of the discussion concerning John Gill from the start. The main issue was whether Gill was consistent. Allow me to quote Garrett originally:


"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"




Garrett seems to concede now that Gill was inconsistent. Garrett argues that Gill didn't really believe in the strict view of regeneration, which simply proves that Gill was foolishly contradictory or, worse, dishonest, as Gill gave no indication whatsoever in Book 6 of his Body of Divinity that the view he proffered was anything but his own. In either case, Garrett's central claim that was made: that John Gill was "consistent" in his teaching on gospel instrumentality in regeneration is disproved - even by his own admission. He admits Gill taught immediate regeneration contrary to Gill's actual belief, which is contradictory.


Moving on to what Garrett wants to debate now: that Gill never divorced regeneration from gospel conversion, there is no need to debate this, as I have never argued that he did like modern PB's do today. 

Garrett's Response 5.1

What follows is in regard to Garrett's post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/jasons-5th-revised.html


Garrett stated:


"Not only are discipleship and sonship "consistent" but so are regeneration and conversion. But, what Jason means by "consistent with" is simply that the regenerated will possibly or likely be converted to Jesus, not that they absolutely will."


What Garrett is not considering is the strength of this position to explain a gradual gospel belief. Let us examine Nicodemus. He appears in the gospel of John three times. First, by night, at which time Jesus spoke to him of the necessity of being born again (John 3). Second, Nicodemus argues for a fair hearing of Jesus with his fellow Pharisees in regard to taking Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:45-53). Thirdly, Nicodemus seems to openly show discipleship in bringing a kingly amount of spices to assist Joseph of Arimathaea in preparing the body of Jesus (John 19:38-42). 


Do we presume that Nicodemus was unregenerate because he does not show strong enough evidence of spiritual life? Garrett's soteriology implies a Pauline experience of regeneration/conversion as the norm when it was exceptional in nature. Surely Garrett is familiar with many professed believers in Jesus Christ that cannot point to a specific time that they came to believe in the gospel. If regeneration incorporates gospel faith or if regeneration is part of a process that necessarily extends to gospel conversion immediately, how does one understand the process of coming to faith in Nicodemus, or the rejection of Christ by Peter? Or 2 Timothy 2:13?


Garrett's view of salvation is incapable of explaining severe disobedience in the children of God. Where was God's irresistible grace in Samson's life when he stopped off for a harlot? 


The final point to make here is that Garrett's view is ultimately contradictory. To illustrate this line of reasoning, I want to refer back to a statement Garrett made in reference to Luke 11:52:


"The scriptures teach that, from the human perspective, from the perspective of second causes, we may hinder others from being saved, just as we may help them to be saved.


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 would have us believe that the regeneration that entails or necessarily leads to gospel faith is absolutely predestined and unchangeably fixed, yet claims here that wicked men can hinder it for a time. Any space of time results in a contradiction with a necessary gospel belief. The actual point in time that God decreed gospel faith in the elect would have no delay; therefore, the wicked men are not actually hindering anything in the text in time or eternity. Surely Brother Garrett can see the problem here. It is not logically possible that a salvation absolutely determined at a specific point and time could happen "earlier". 


Garrett effectively emptied the "hindering" of this text of any content whatsoever. So, again, what is hindered here if it is not eternal salvation? 


Garrett stated:


"If we look at Paul's words in II Thess. 1: 8, 9, can we tell which proposition it is? Is it universal or limited? Does Paul say "some of those who know not God and obey not the gospel will not be eternally destroyed"? Does Paul affirm that some of the saved, who escape "eternal destruction," nevertheless did not know God and did not obey his gospel? Jason argues that the language is not universal but limited, avowing that Some S(unbelievers) are P (saved). But, the language of Paul will not allow a limited proposition. I do not need to use the words "all" or "every" in the proposition to affirm a universal proposition. They are necessarily implied (deduced). The absence of such words do not imply a limited categorical proposition."


All of this was unnecessary. Garrett failed to meet my argument here, which was that Paul cannot logically be understood in 2 Thess. 1:7-9 to mean that every single person is damned that has ever rejected Christ in even a single act of willful disobedience to the gospel. Was Peter damned? Plainly, Paul is understood to mean that those that live a life of gospel disobedience shall be damned.


Garett stated:


"When Jason reads John 5: 25, 28, about the "dead" ones "hearing" the "voice of the Son of God," and being quickened, does he not argue that this "voice" is not the gospel? That it is always effectual and irresistible? Yes, he does. Then why does he take a totally different view about hearing the voice of Christ in John 10? In John 10 the voice of Christ is the gospel, but not in John 5! In John 5 regeneration is the result of hearing the voice of Christ, but in John 10 conversion is the result of hearing the voice of Christ. In John 5 the voice cannot be resisted, but in John 10 it can be resisted!"


John 10:27 corresponds to John 5:24, not 5:25. John 5:24, 25, and 28 show three distinct groups of individuals: those that presently hear the words of the gospel who have already passed from death to life by the life giving voice of Christ (24), the unregenerate that will be quickened by the life giving voice of Christ (25), and the physical dead that will be resurrected by the life giving voice of Christ (28). 


Though John 10:27 uses the word 'voice', it must be evaluated in context. The words of Jesus are in context, not his voice alone, as in 5:25, 28. It is the words of Jesus that the Pharisees of 10:25,26 failed to believe, not simply the sound of his voice. When Jesus contrasts his sheep to the Pharisees in 10:27 it is precisely in their disbelief of his words that the comparison is made. This is a natural reading of this text. When Jesus refers to his sheep in contrast to the Pharisees in 10:27 it is in the spirit of 5:24 - the words of Jesus are understood by those that have already passed from death to life, which is why the Pharisees believed not because they were not born again (in the spirit of Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus in John 3).