This post concerns Garrett's post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/browns-introduction-of-new-arguments.html
Garrett stated:
"First, it is to be noticed how Jason has stopped replying to my arguments and begins to make affirmative arguments. Of course, I started this in the affirmative and Jason in the negative. This is clear because he began his blog in order to negate my writings on hardshellism. But, now he does not like the negative and wants to go into the affirmative mode. Interesting and revealing, is it not?"
I have addressed this claim of Garrett. This is an illogical claim because these arguments support my negation of his view of regeneration being mediated through the gospel, and are expressly made in that context.
My point in bringing up Nicodemus was not to argue that it is a surety that he was born again, it was to illustrate the problem of gradual gospel belief. If gospel belief is instantaneous in regeneration, how does one explain the apparent gradual gospel belief in individuals who seem to come to faith in Christ slowly over a period of time?
A related point is illustrated in 2 Timothy 2:18,19, "Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his."
Now, it is apparent that if a mediated, intellectual gospel belief is equated with faith, which is obtained and necessary in regeneration, it would of necessity persist as the basis of the vital union between Christ and the regenerate. Here, in this chapter of 2 Timothy 2, the inconsistency of this view is manifest, for the text proves that it is possible that the regenerate are in a vital union with Christ, though their intellectual gospel belief has been overthrown. This would prove that it is incorrect to equate faith with mediated gospel knowledge. It surely cannot be advocated that those who deny the resurrection of Christ could be said to believe the gospel, but you have here in this chapter the possibility in the mind of Paul that some regenerate children of God have been led astray by false teachers into heresy.
It is necessary to recognize that Paul is admonishing Timothy in his ministry to children of God that may be in error. I call the reader's attention to several places in this chapter (2 Timothy 2) to show that Paul is not pronouncing finally on the eternal destiny of those that have been carried away into Gnosticism.
Verse 12 and 13 indicate this in that Paul shows in context of enduring all things for the elect's sake, "if we deny him, he also will deny us", right next to, "if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself." Verse 19 places the certainty of the knowledge of the identity of the regenerate in the mind of God, not in the mind of Paul, as the LORD knoweth them that are his. Verse 21 shows that Paul's exhortation is for the young Timothy to purge himself from the influence of false teachers that are vessels of dishonor in the church of God in verse 20, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, not that those overthrown in their faith are certainly vessels of dishonor.
Lastly, verse 25 and 26 make it obvious that those overthrown in their faith are possibly regenerate children of God, as Paul states that it is possible that they will repent and acknowledge the truth of the gospel. The children of God can be taken captive of the devil from the intellectual truth of gospel faith, as Peter was nearly sifted like wheat, but can possibly recover themselves, as those that are converted from the error of their ways (James 5:19,20).
If gospel knowledge is equated to faith, Garrett is forced in one of two directions in this chapter: (1) those with an overthrown faith were of a certainty never truly born again, or (2) it is possible that regenerate children of God can lose their actual faith and become unregenerate. (2) is manifestly denied by his adherence to Calvinism. (1) is denied because 2:13 shows those with an overthrown faith to be in vital union with Christ, and 2:25 refers to repentance to orthodoxy, which establishes the possibility that those with an overthrown faith were regenerate children of God. While it is a possibility in the mind of Paul, but not a certainty, that these with an overthrown faith were never truly born again, it is clearly possible to him that they were deceived and may repent.
This establishes that an intellectual, gospel faith is not the fundamental basis of the vital union of the regenerate with Christ, and if it be not the fundamental basis after regeneration, neither can it be the fundamental basis in regeneration in the first instance.
Garrett asked:
"By the way, let Jason answer this question - "if good seed is sown into good ground, will it always and necessarily produce fruit or a plant?"
It will always produce some degree of fruit or a plant, but it may not be the towering tree in the kingdom of God in which the fowls of the air will choose to lodge.
Garrett stated:
"Jason next brings up the case of Peter once again. But, once again he fails to prove Hardshell premises from references to the case of Peter. Jason says that Peter increased in his faith and understanding and from this fact wants to enquire as to the time when his belief was equal to his regeneration. In Matthew 16 Peter says "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." John says "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." (I John 5: 1) Thus, Peter was born again in Matthew 16. Therefore, since one cannot become unborn, or lose his regeneration life, his future need of"conversion" was not his regeneration, but of his conversion from false notions and beliefs. But, where has Jason ever shown that Peter was born again while without faith and understanding."
He admits that Peter was born again but required conversion from "false notions and beliefs", and then asks, "where has Jason shown that Peter was born again while without faith and understanding". He contradicts himself in admitting that Peter had false beliefs, but was born again! I have never argued that in this gospel era, regenerate individuals would remain in a state of being completely without faith and understanding, so I assume Garrett means born again with some measure of faith and understanding, which has always been the position I advocated, and which Garrett concedes in contradiction!
In relation to that, Garrett contradicts himself by admitting that Peter had false beliefs, yet that he was born again with true beliefs. Peter may have declared that Christ was the Savior in Matt. 16:16, but in Matt. 16:21 Peter tries to talk Jesus out of being Savior - obviously Peter was unclear on the truth of the gospel. Peter's denial of Christ was a denial of the intimacy of Christ as the Lord of Peter's life. It was a declaration of no intimate knowledge of Christ (unbelief) the converse of which would be a public profession of intimate knowledge of Jesus Christ (gospel faith). Peter effectively contradicted Matt. 16:16 when he denied Christ, yet Peter was born again.
Garrett stated:
"Jason, from the above words, seems to now want to discuss the relationship of predestination and the divine decrees to regeneration, justification, calling, sanctification, perseverance, etc., and so we will follow him in this, though we should first finish our debate on whether the Hardshells are primitive Baptists or not, and on their denial of means in salvation and of the necessity of faith for salvation."
No, Garrett is incorrect here. The charge is that the error of a view of soteriology that necessitates moral obedience in the children of God is erroneous in the same way as necessitating gospel faith/conversion/obedience as a part of the irresistible grace of God is in regeneration. Did not all the disciples reject the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus given to them by the women reporting the empty tomb? Were the disciples not regenerated until they saw and believed that Christ had risen?
Garrett stated:
"What saith the scriptures? "Whoever has this hope within him (whoever is regenerated) purifies (continually) himself." (I John 3: 3) "Whoever is born of God keeps himself." (I John 5: 18) "
Did Samson continually purify himself and keep himself? Hardly. To describe Samson as rambunctious seems an understatement, as he appears to be the Conan the Barbarian of the Old Testament. It seems improbable that a Judge of Israel and Nazirite, holy unto Yahweh (Numbers 6:8), was an unregenerate man. The point is, there is room in "keeps himself" and "purifies himself" for backsliding - even severe backsliding that ruins a regenerated persons life (Samson, David) or results in the termination of their life (King Josiah). How does an irresistible grace within the lives of David and Samson allow for their sins?
Garrett stated:
"But, how can Christian faith, love, and hope be produced in this divine birth apart from the Father teaching and convincing of gospel truth? Further, he either does this by personally teaching these things directly, or through gospel preaching."
So we see that Garrett admits that God regenerates independently of the preached gospel. He concedes that Paul teaches this doctrine in 1 Thess. 4:9. If this is true, why does he argue that regeneration is only mediated through the preached word when he plainly concedes that God regenerates directly? This is an important inconsistency, for it is a contradiction inasmuch as he has opposed the doctrine of immediate regeneration. I certainly do not disagree with him that God teaches faith, hope, and love directly, but would add that there is no reason to insist that God ordinarily teaches this by gospel preaching because of this 1 Thess text.
Garrett stated:
"Jason objects to my affirming that men, in scripture, are said to hinder others from being saved. But, he does not respond to the scriptural proofs I gave. Jason offers no scriptures to justify his rejection of the scriptures that I presented or to justify his propositions. Did Jason tell us what was the "kingdom" of Matthew 23? and of what it means not to "escape the damnation of Hell"? Is that some kind of temporal punishment, brother Jason?"
There is no difficulty in Matthew 23. Matthew 23:13's kingdom of heaven cannot be eternal life, as the wicked rulers of Israel have no power to hinder the eternal inheritance of the elect. No view of the wicked rulers of Israel hindering the eternal life of the elect can be harmonized with God's decree of the elect to be regenerated. Either their hindering is not actually a hindrance to eternal life in that what they are hindering is not the decreed time that God effectually called (in which case the text is duplicitous), or they are actually capable of hindering God's decree of the particular time of the effectual call (in which case the effectual call is not effectual).
Therefore, the kingdom of God here is the spiritual kingdom of God that Christ established on earth that men enter into by adherence to the teaching of Jesus. In the entering of this spiritual kingdom, they can be hindered by false teaching.
Now, it is true that failing to enter into the spiritual kingdom of Christ is not consistent with having been regenerated, as he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. In Matt. 13:37-42 the tares are outside of the kingdom and are eternally damned. Therefore, it should be taught that submitting to the gospel of Christ is the only way to inherit the fullness of the Kingdom of God on earth, which is eternal life. Those that fail to enter in are generally damned, as they evidence unbelief characteristic of the unregenerate. So it is not inconsistent to find in Matthew 23:15 that proselytes of the Pharisees who are not in the spiritual kingdom of Christ are twice the child of hell.
What must be kept in view, however, is that Matt. 23 in context is a castigation of the Pharisees. There is no real exegetical connection between verse 13 and 15 in terms of the proselytes of verse 15 being the same men kept from the kingdom in verse 13. The Pharisees did not need to 'compass sea and land' to find a follower of Jesus to pervert, the followers of Jesus were right under their noses. By use of "compassing sea and land", the context is not of verse 13, but of the hypocritical religious zeal of the Pharisees and Scribes. This religious zeal caused them to shut up the kingdom of heaven from men and in their own work of proselytizing to make men worse in propagating wickedness than they would have been. Arguing that an eternal context is present in both texts is unjustified because the context is first: the wickedness of the rulers of Jerusalem.
Verse 33 is clear that these wicked rulers are of the non-elect and will be eternally damned.
Garrett stated:
"My explanation is in accord with the prior beliefs of the old Baptists. Jason's is not. They believed that 1) The predestined time for God to regenerate/effectually call could not be hindered or prevented, and 2) People in scripture are said to be instruments in saving some and in hindering others from being saved. Jason thinks that one cannot hold both views because they contradict and therefore he believes that one of these propositions must be false. First, in response, where is the justification for believing that our ability to reconcile biblical propositions is the deciding factor for accepting them as truth? Can we comprehend the mind of God or fathom the mysteries of theology?"
Notice how Garrett concedes the contradictory nature of his interpretation of Luke 11:52 and Matt. 23:13. He even seems to think of it as irreconcilable. Now, in regard to comprehending mysteries of theology, he is presuming that this issue is a mystery, which is obviously something I do not concede. He's begging the question here. Observe how Garrett would rather embrace a contradiction under a flag of piousness than accept a biblical alternative that is logically compelling. If this be true, how can he be convinced of any truth? How can he logically argue against the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons when they will take the same "moral high road" and cloak their irrationality in a pious embrace of contradiction?
Garrett stated:
"I showed how "perspective" is important in reconciling seemingly conflicting statements in the word of God."
His idea of "perspective" is a whopping self-contradiction. If true, it has the effect of making the hindering or shutting up in Luke 11:52 and Matt. 23:13 not really a hindering or shutting up of eternal life. He stutters in his "perspective" treatment because he claimed that these texts actually prove that men can hinder other men from eternal salvation so that they are not saved as early as they could have been. Blatant contradiction! Garrett stated, "2) People in scripture are said to be instruments in saving some and in hindering others from being saved".
Which is it? Are men actually hindering or aren't they? There is no third possibility; regardless of perspective, the men are actually hindering eternal salvation or they aren't. If they aren't actually hindering, Garrett is blatantly contradicting the text according to which it states that men do hinder eternal life from others. If they are hindering, Garrett is blatantly contradicting the decree of God in regeneration.
Remember that Garrett is trying to argue that the kingdom of heaven or the destination of those that would go in of Luke 11:52 is eternal life. When he states that the hindering and shutting up of these texts does not actually keep the elect from eternal life, it follows by resistless logic in the text that the hindering and shutting up of these texts is not of eternal life.
On the other hand, if Garrett believes, like he says he does, that the texts refer to eternal life, he must accept that men can actually hinder eternal life in contradiction to God's decree of a regeneration that includes gospel belief.
His idea of perspective does not change that there are logically only the two possibilities above. His idea of perspective changes the text, nothing else, to: "seem to shut up" and "seem to hinder" eternal life. But is this really a valid third position? Not at all, because it is simply a denial that these texts are in a context of eternal life, which returns us above.
Anyone could see he's trying to pull "the fastest gun in the west" routine, where Garrett can pull his six-gun out so fast he doesn't appear to move at all.
This exercise shows that there is an error in Garrett's theology because it will not harmonize to these texts without contradiction.
Garrett stated:
"Jason wrote:
"Garrett effectively emptied the "hindering" of this text of any content whatsoever. So, again, what is hindered here if it is not eternal salvation?"
That is false, for I clearly showed that the "hindering from entering the kingdom of God"was hindering from eternal salvation, of entering the "everlasting kingdom of our Lord." (I Peter 1: 11) I also showed how this failure to enter the kingdom at the last day was connected with failure to "escape the damnation of Hell." Thus, this substantiates and justifies my interpretation and destroys Jason's proposition that says one cannot, in any sense, or from any perspective, keep another from being saved."
Note his self-contradiction because he does not actually believe that they can hinder the eternal salvation of the elect. He did not show that Matt. 23:33 referred to the same men kept from the kingdom. It is obviously the rulers of Jerusalem in context, the ones that did the shutting up of the kingdom. Read the whole chapter and examine the contextual flow. It is plainly the wicked Jews that were rulers over Israel in verse 29 that are condemned in verse 33. Is this an example of faithful biblical hermeneutics? Examine verse 37, those wicked Jewish rulers that killed the prophets are contrasted to the children of Jerusalem that Jesus would have taken into his bosom. This same contrast is observed in verse 13. The condemnation of Jesus is plainly reserved for the leaders and teachers of Jerusalem, not her children.
Garrett stated:
"He will, of course, in order to try and be consistent with himself, affirm that conversion is not the "work of God" as is "regeneration." Is conversion the "work of God" brother Jason?"
It is the work of God because God works within by His Spirit both to will and to do of His good pleasure, but men are not divinely coerced to embrace the gospel - it is their desire to because of the change wrought by regeneration.
No comments:
Post a Comment