Garrett stated:
"Not only are discipleship and sonship "consistent" but so are regeneration and conversion. But, what Jason means by "consistent with" is simply that the regenerated will possibly or likely be converted to Jesus, not that they absolutely will."
What Garrett is not considering is the strength of this position to explain a gradual gospel belief. Let us examine Nicodemus. He appears in the gospel of John three times. First, by night, at which time Jesus spoke to him of the necessity of being born again (John 3). Second, Nicodemus argues for a fair hearing of Jesus with his fellow Pharisees in regard to taking Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:45-53). Thirdly, Nicodemus seems to openly show discipleship in bringing a kingly amount of spices to assist Joseph of Arimathaea in preparing the body of Jesus (John 19:38-42).
Do we presume that Nicodemus was unregenerate because he does not show strong enough evidence of spiritual life? Garrett's soteriology implies a Pauline experience of regeneration/conversion as the norm when it was exceptional in nature. Surely Garrett is familiar with many professed believers in Jesus Christ that cannot point to a specific time that they came to believe in the gospel. If regeneration incorporates gospel faith or if regeneration is part of a process that necessarily extends to gospel conversion immediately, how does one understand the process of coming to faith in Nicodemus, or the rejection of Christ by Peter? Or 2 Timothy 2:13?
Garrett's view of salvation is incapable of explaining severe disobedience in the children of God. Where was God's irresistible grace in Samson's life when he stopped off for a harlot?
The final point to make here is that Garrett's view is ultimately contradictory. To illustrate this line of reasoning, I want to refer back to a statement Garrett made in reference to Luke 11:52:
"The scriptures teach that, from the human perspective, from the perspective of second causes, we may hinder others from being saved, just as we may help them to be saved.
Now, from God's perspective, men do not successfully hinder the elect from finally obtaining salvation, both regeneration and conversion. The passages do not say that the elect are kept from salvation, although they may be hindered for a time, so that they could have been saved earlier than they actually were. Men are hindered from being saved, looking at the matter from the standpoint of means and second causes, or from the human finite perspective."
Garrett would have us believe that the regeneration that entails or necessarily leads to gospel faith is absolutely predestined and unchangeably fixed, yet claims here that wicked men can hinder it for a time. Any space of time results in a contradiction with a necessary gospel belief. The actual point in time that God decreed gospel faith in the elect would have no delay; therefore, the wicked men are not actually hindering anything in the text in time or eternity. Surely Brother Garrett can see the problem here. It is not logically possible that a salvation absolutely determined at a specific point and time could happen "earlier".
Garrett effectively emptied the "hindering" of this text of any content whatsoever. So, again, what is hindered here if it is not eternal salvation?
Garrett stated:
"If we look at Paul's words in II Thess. 1: 8, 9, can we tell which proposition it is? Is it universal or limited? Does Paul say "some of those who know not God and obey not the gospel will not be eternally destroyed"? Does Paul affirm that some of the saved, who escape "eternal destruction," nevertheless did not know God and did not obey his gospel? Jason argues that the language is not universal but limited, avowing that Some S(unbelievers) are P (saved). But, the language of Paul will not allow a limited proposition. I do not need to use the words "all" or "every" in the proposition to affirm a universal proposition. They are necessarily implied (deduced). The absence of such words do not imply a limited categorical proposition."
All of this was unnecessary. Garrett failed to meet my argument here, which was that Paul cannot logically be understood in 2 Thess. 1:7-9 to mean that every single person is damned that has ever rejected Christ in even a single act of willful disobedience to the gospel. Was Peter damned? Plainly, Paul is understood to mean that those that live a life of gospel disobedience shall be damned.
Garett stated:
"When Jason reads John 5: 25, 28, about the "dead" ones "hearing" the "voice of the Son of God," and being quickened, does he not argue that this "voice" is not the gospel? That it is always effectual and irresistible? Yes, he does. Then why does he take a totally different view about hearing the voice of Christ in John 10? In John 10 the voice of Christ is the gospel, but not in John 5! In John 5 regeneration is the result of hearing the voice of Christ, but in John 10 conversion is the result of hearing the voice of Christ. In John 5 the voice cannot be resisted, but in John 10 it can be resisted!"
John 10:27 corresponds to John 5:24, not 5:25. John 5:24, 25, and 28 show three distinct groups of individuals: those that presently hear the words of the gospel who have already passed from death to life by the life giving voice of Christ (24), the unregenerate that will be quickened by the life giving voice of Christ (25), and the physical dead that will be resurrected by the life giving voice of Christ (28).
Though John 10:27 uses the word 'voice', it must be evaluated in context. The words of Jesus are in context, not his voice alone, as in 5:25, 28. It is the words of Jesus that the Pharisees of 10:25,26 failed to believe, not simply the sound of his voice. When Jesus contrasts his sheep to the Pharisees in 10:27 it is precisely in their disbelief of his words that the comparison is made. This is a natural reading of this text. When Jesus refers to his sheep in contrast to the Pharisees in 10:27 it is in the spirit of 5:24 - the words of Jesus are understood by those that have already passed from death to life, which is why the Pharisees believed not because they were not born again (in the spirit of Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus in John 3).
No comments:
Post a Comment