Garrett's Response 3.1

This post deals with Garrett's blog post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/jasons-3rd-rebuttal.html


Garrett states:


"Jason is very contradictory on James 1: 18. In his initial postings he seemed to say that"the word of truth" was the gospel, but later argued that it was a reference to Jesus. But, if the "word of truth" is Jesus, then why does he feel a need to apply it "conversion" (as he understands conversion)?


Here is what brother Fralick wrote to me about Jason's argumentation on this verse.

"I believe Jason is now contradicting himself. He wants to argue that James 1:18 is referring to gospel conversion in his post 'Gospel Conversion':

"Therefore, the context of verse 18 must also entail a volitional context of gospel conversion. The effectual call of the will of God of verse 18 must be divisible from the word of truth, which was also present (but not instrumental) in the regeneration of the early Jewish disciples. They were then converted by the word after they were called from spiritual death.""


The quotation above was in a context of evaluating the logical implications of Garrett's view of James 1:18. The point was, even if it was granted that the 'word of truth' referred to the gospel, the text would still be understood teaching a distinction between regeneration and gospel conversion because of the implications of the volitional nature of man's will accepting the Logos in verse 21. The only way to preserve the natural impression of verse 21 and not conclude an Arminian view of free will is to embrace the Primitive Baptist paradigm of distinguishing sonship from discipleship.


Garrett's eventual answer to this line of reasoning seemed to be to claim the contradiction that an Arminian view of man's will coincides with the "effectual" call of God in gospel regeneration. Either the gospel is God's effectual means of regeneration (in which case man's will is moot, or, at least, after the fact), or man's will can reject the gospel and it is not God's effectual means of regeneration. There is no tertium quid. Either James 1:21 supposes that the gospel can be rejected and God's purposes in regeneration can be overthrown, or the text is duplicitous to suggest that man's will has anything at all to do with a regeneration effected by grace that is irresistible. 


Who will win out between his warring spirits of soul winner and hyper-calvinist? Inquiring minds want to know.


Garrett stated:


"Jason divides, seemingly, these new covenant promises into two categories. First, there is the regeneration category, whereby some of these new covenant blessings are experienced. Second, there is the conversion category, whereby the other blessings, not experienced in the regeneration category, are experienced. He then argues that the promise of God to "write" upon the heart is a post regeneration experience, not the regeneration experience itself. Jason said - "this writing is addressed to...the regenerate."Notice his division of parts of the promised blessings into distinct categories when he said - "once they have the stony heart replaced with a heart of flesh," then they can experience the other promises of the covenant."


It seems to me the texts under consideration are addressed solely to regeneration. All of the law and the prophets, according to Christ, can be reduced to love of God and of neighbor. It is the love of God that is shed abroad in the regenerate's heart by the Holy Spirit. And, it appears, it is this love of God and of neighbor that is the defining characteristic of the sheep of Matt. 25 at the great day of judgment. 


It becomes problematic to suppose these Old Testament references to the new birth entail an intellectual, propositional knowledge of the doctrine of the law, especially when Christ summarizes the moral obligation of man under the law to be love. Is it the concept of love or love itself that is taught? When Paul states that, "As touching brotherly love, ye have no need that I should teach you, for ye yourselves are taught of God how that ye should love one another." Would that be the intellectual concept of love, or the actual emotion? Seems obvious, as the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. The way Garrett interprets these texts is in the spirit of the letter of the O.T. law, it appears he hasn't observed the irony of this.