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.
No comments:
Post a Comment