"Omissions" Addressed

Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/jasons-omissions.html

Garrett stated:

"Further, Jason continues to prove what I have never denied. I have never denied that some old Baptists taught that a narrowly defined regeneration preceded full regeneration and conversion. I even mentioned how this was the belief of Andrew Fuller. But, none of these old Baptists were Hardshells, because they taught that conversion immediately followed regeneration, that regeneration only preceded conversion logically, but not chronologically. Jason chose not to respond to all this.  It was not until Beebe and Trott that regeneration and conversion became separated by a gap in time.  Yet even these first Hardshells did not deny that all the regenerated would be converted.  In fact, all the oldest articles of faith of the oldest Hardshell churches say - "all the elect will be regenerated and converted."

My blog is addressed to Garrett's excessive criticisms of the Primitive Baptists. I did not address some of his writing as to whether present PB's are historical in regard to teaching on conversion because I agree with Garrett here that some present PB's are in error. I stated this multiple times in past posts. All historic PB's believed that under the sound of the gospel as preached by man, the regenerate would be converted, as it is the nature of the regenerate to embrace the revelation available. Where Garrett and I disagree is in reference to the nature of this conversion. He argues that God's irresistible grace is at work, and I argue that conversion and belief in the gospel is a cooperative work of the Holy Spirit and the regenerated will of man much like progressive sanctification (which he also argues is by irresistible grace).

What is the key point for the purpose of my blog in showing the excesses of Garrett's criticisms and his errors, is Garrett's admission here that Gill did not teach or believe that a strict regeneration was in context in 1 Peter 1:23, James 1:18, and 1 Cor. 4:15. Though Garrett claims here that he has "never denied" that Gill taught this, it is a fact that Garrett claimed the opposite and attempts to appear like he has been consistent all along. To illustrate, Garrett stated:

"Gill, in the citation referenced by Jason, wherein he gives two kinds of "regeneration," is not giving HIS view or the view of scripture, which knows nothing of two kinds of"regeneration," but he is giving what is the view given in theological works by Calvinists in Gill's own time. Gill cites no scripture to show that certain passages, dealing with"regeneration" (being spiritually born or quickened), were referring to the narrowly defined kind of "regeneration."

The above quote was stated in this post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/jason-brown-vs-john-gill.html

Quite obviously Garrett did "deny" that Gill embraced this view, but he now admits the opposite. Gill did cite Scripture, if Garrett would have observed, in the same section in, "Of Regeneration", in Book 6 that I quoted in which Gill distinguishes regeneration from gospel conversion. I quoted it in my last post, but Gill argued that 1 John 3:9 is to be viewed  as regeneration proper - a kind of germination of the elect by an infusion of the principle of grace.

So what is the point? The point is that Garrett's view of Baptist history is guilty of a zealous overstatement. He is not in error in regard to some of the errors of modern PB's, but he is so eager to oppose that he is willing to twist and pervert Gill from his own published views if it seems to make modern PB's seem more ridiculous. It seems his spirit is wrong even if he has some truth.

Dear reader beware! You now have indication to view his writings with a healthy dose of skepticism, and I behoove all to put his statements to the test before believing every word.

Garrett spoke to my "omissions", but failed to realize that where he was most critical is where I am critical in regard to some modern PB's. Speaking of omissions, notice that Garrett wouldn't touch Matt. 23, Luke 11:52, or 2 Timothy 2 in response to my last post. When it comes to "thus sayeth the Lord", he seems to retreat.

What good is a history lesson if you can't answer objections in Holy Writ?