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.