This post is a rebuttal to Stephen Garrett's blog post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/jasons-2nd-rebuttal.html.
In my original post, I noted that John Gill, in his Body of Divinity, Book 6, chapter 11, gave credence to interpretations of James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:25, and 1 Corinthians 4:15 that is consistent with Primitive Baptist views on these texts.
Garrett has argued that PB views of these texts were invented by them around 1832 in the context of the Missionary debate among the Baptists, and that no Baptist theologian before the early 1800's can be cited espousing the doctrine of immediate regeneration.
Gill plainly states at the beginning of Book 6, "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."
Gill outlines immediate regeneration or the infusion of a principle of grace here as distinct from gospel conversion - a model of regeneration preceding gospel faith. This distinction is similar to the distinction made by Beebe and Trott. The point is, however, that the doctrine of immediate regeneration plainly pre-dates 1832 by a century at least (Gill 1697-1771). Garrett's view of Baptist history is not accurate.
Now, he will be quick to point out that most modern PB's differ from Gill, Beebe, and Trott by insisting that gospel conversion does not necessarily immediately follow regeneration, but that is a separate issue from the matter of gospel instrumentality in all phases of regeneration. Garrett is clearly wrong to insist that no Baptist theologians before 1832 believed in the doctrine of immediate regeneration.
What I think he wants to say is that no Baptist theologians before 1832 believed that immediate regeneration happened outside of a subsequent gospel conversion, as Gill put it, "...which makes it a fit object of the effectual calling.." That seems to be the case.
But, it needs to be pointed out that Gill did not view the gospel call as irresistible, as he states in Book 6, "...then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe...".
Gill's gospel regeneration view was only in a broad, over-arching sense, not in a narrow sense. Narrowly, he defined regeneration as an immediate act of God upon the soul of man before gospel conversion. He advocated views of James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:25, and 1 Corinthians 4:15 consistent with this - these texts can be viewed in his broad or narrow definition of regeneration. Confusion occurs when the reader doesn't keep in mind the two senses Gill listed at the beginning of book 6 when they come to:
"Fourthly, The instrumental cause of regeneration, if it may be so called, are the word of God, and the ministers of it; hence regenerate persons are said to be "born again by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1 Pet. 1:23), and again, "of his own will begat he us with the word of truth" (James 1:18), unless by the Word in these passages should be meant the Eternal Logos, or essential Word of God, Christ Jesus, since logoV is used in both places; though ministers of the gospel are not only represented as ministers and instruments by whom others believe, but as spiritual fathers; "though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ", says the apostle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:15), "yet have ye not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"; so he speaks of his son Onesimus, whom he had "begotten in his bonds" (Philemon 1:10) 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. 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 not speculating from reason when he states "seems" in regard to the instrumentality of the word not being agreeable to immediate regeneration anymore than he is when he states "seems" in the last portion of the paragraph:
"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."
He is looking at these passages in a broad and narrow sense that he defined. What this means, of course, is that Gill did not view James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:25, or 1 Cor. 4:15 as supporting gospel regeneration in the narrow sense in which Garrett espouses and declares as historically substantiated.
No comments:
Post a Comment