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.