This post concerns Garrett's post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/does-jason-agree-with-beebe-trott.html
and his post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/jason-brown-vs-john-gill.html
Garrett stated:
"It is ironic that Jason accuses me of attempting to change course (reorient the discussion) in our debate. First, because he has himself shifted from the negative to the affirmative. Second, he himself, in the above words, attempts to reorient the discussion!"
In regard to the first charge, if I affirm a "spirit alone" view of regeneration in order to negate Garrett's view of gospel means in regeneration, how have I shifted from negating the proposition that regeneration is mediated through the preached word? I am not inconsistent with a negative stance to any proposition if I broach issues the logical result of which lead to the negation of any debated proposition. In any case, even if I were forbidden from this method, I've done this from the beginning of my blog when I argued, in my first post, that John 3:8 establishes a model of the new birth that is without means. Why is he only now objecting? His objection to my methodology is entirely without merit, and appears arbitrary.
Touching his second point, that I have reoriented the debate from gospel means, this is false because I argued from the start that Garrett's claims about the differences between Beebe and Trott with modern PB's were inaccurate in making that difference one of gospel utility. They, like modern PB's, distinguished between regeneration and gospel conversion. The difference was that Beebe and Trott necessitated gospel conversion. It is the necessitation of gospel conversion, which is an attribute of Absolute Predestination, that is the key difference.
Garrett stated:
"Also, Beebe and Trott did not teach the same thing as did Dr. Gill! Dr. Gill, as I have shown, did not believe in two kinds of regeneration, nor that any kind of regeneration occurred apart from the gospel. He equated "regeneration" with being "quickened" and said that a man was not made alive spiritually until he heard and believed the gospel. So, Garrett did not make a "mistake," but it is Jason who is greatly mistaken. Did Gill believe that regeneration was a separate experience from conversion or that any man could be said to be regenerated who was not converted?"
John Gill stated in "The Cause of God and Truth, "whence it follows, that regeneration is rather a preparation for the right hearing of the word than the hearing of the word is a preparation for regeneration." Since Gill said this as a summary of the Parable of the Sower and the "good ground" is designated in that parable apart from the gospel truth sown, it follows logically that a separation (at least logical separation) exists.
Gill also stated in his Body of Divinity, "The new man is created in righteousness and. true holiness; the principle of holiness is then formed, from whence holy actions spring. The grace of repentance then appears. The stony, hard, impenitent heart being taken away, and a heart of flesh susceptible of Divine impressions being given; on which to follow a sense of sin, sorrow for it of a godly sort, and repentance unto life and salvation, which is not to be repented of; faith in Christ, which is not of a man’s self, but the gift of God, and the operation of the Spirit of God, is now brought into exercise, which being an effect, is an evidence of regeneration."
Obviously Gill here makes regeneration quite distinct from gospel faith. Gospel faith is "brought into exercise as an evidence of regeneration". Another quote to illustrate from Body of Divinity, "It [regeneration - JB] is also signified by "seed" (1 John 3:9). "Whosoever is born of God—his seed remaineth in him"; which is the principle of grace infused in regeneration; and as seed contains in it virtually, all that after proceeds from it, the blade, stalk, ear, and full corn in the ear; so the first principle of grace implanted in the heart, seminally contains all the grace which afterwards appears, and all the fruits, effects, acts, and exercises of it."
I'm not at all clear where Garrett is justified exclaiming (he uses exclamation marks) that Gill did not teach what any reasonable mind can see that he did teach from these passages. In the very best light for Garrett's position, Gill is highly contradictory on this point. Nevertheless, his contradictions are enough to prove that views of this nature hardly originated with the Primitive Baptists circa. 1832.
To any honest mind, however, the seeming contradictions in Gill are not so. What they are the result of is Gill defining the word 'regeneration' in two ways. I've stated this before, but I'll quote again from Gill where he makes this plain at the beginning of the section in Book 6, "Of Regeneration": "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."
What is Gill doing by making this distinction? The strict definition plainly excludes the effectual call and conversion, as he states as such. The language of the "first principle of grace infused into the soul" is repeated in the remainder of his writing in this section, so it cannot be claimed that he is not referencing it later.
What Gill seems to argue in the later passage that deals with 1 Peter 1:23, James 1:18, and 1 Cor. 4:15 is that the instrumentality of the gospel is in context of his broad definition of regeneration, not a strict view. While Gill still plainly sees the above passages to be referring to the gospel, and not Christ as the Logos, he nevertheless understands the instrumentality of the word to regeneration to be one of drawing out the exercise of the principle of grace first implanted at regeneration, not regeneration itself. This is all consistent with the distinction he makes in the first place at the beginning of Book 6 (quoted above).
When I have stated that Gill did not change his mind, I was referring to the view of Christ as the Logos. I still think he entertained this view as plausible, or he wouldn't have mentioned it. But that question is not central to the instrumentality of the gospel as fleshed out by Gill. He still theologically divided strict regeneration from gospel conversion. I mean, he did so quite plainly when he distinguished broad regeneration from strict regeneration.
Garrett claimed in one of his rebuttals that Gill made this distinction because it was a popular one among Calvinistic theologians of his day, and prompted me to answer where was the proof that Gill believed it. I'm somewhat shocked by the nature of this response. Why should I need to prove that Gill endorsed a view that was obviously set forth in a book he published? Surely the "onus" is on Garrett to produce evidence showing that Gill included this distinction, yet disbelieved it. What kind of defamation of Gill's academic and Christian integrity is this?
Garrett stated:
"Gill defined the "begetting" of these passages as dealing with a narrowly theologically defined sense! Besides, the main issue is this - did Gill believe that any of the initially regenerated would not instantaneously be broadly regenerated at the same time? That is what Jason needs to do! He needs to show that Gill omitted first stage regeneration from the above passages."
This is not the "main" issue of the discussion concerning John Gill from the start. The main issue was whether Gill was consistent. Allow me to quote Garrett originally:
"I never said Gill was "inconsistent"! Let Jason show us the statement where I said this! I have shown that it is the Hardshells who have accused Gill of being inconsistent, repeating the argument of John Daily (Daily-Throgmorton Debate) where Daily argued that Gill taught means in regeneration in his Commentaries, but had changed his mind, in his older days, and wrote a different view in his Body of Divinity and in his book The Cause of God and Truth. In my book, in the series of chapters titled "Gill and the Hardshells," I show that Gill is consistent and that the Hardshells have twisted the words of Gill"
Garrett seems to concede now that Gill was inconsistent. Garrett argues that Gill didn't really believe in the strict view of regeneration, which simply proves that Gill was foolishly contradictory or, worse, dishonest, as Gill gave no indication whatsoever in Book 6 of his Body of Divinity that the view he proffered was anything but his own. In either case, Garrett's central claim that was made: that John Gill was "consistent" in his teaching on gospel instrumentality in regeneration is disproved - even by his own admission. He admits Gill taught immediate regeneration contrary to Gill's actual belief, which is contradictory.
Moving on to what Garrett wants to debate now: that Gill never divorced regeneration from gospel conversion, there is no need to debate this, as I have never argued that he did like modern PB's do today.
No comments:
Post a Comment