Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/jasons-latest.html
Garrett stated:
"Let us ask Jason some questions for clarification. Is natural revelation sufficient for saving faith? Can one have "saving faith" apart from the special revelation of scripture? If you agree that "knowledge of revelation" is necessary for "saving faith," how can you claim that salvation is through a "faith" that is non-cognitive? Is belief in one God alone required for one to have "saving faith"? Is it "saving faith" if there is no knowledge of Christ or of the gospel? What is "this knowledge"? Can one be finally saved without "saving faith"? Was Paul describing "saving faith" in Romans 10? It is hard for me to believe that Jason would tell enquiring sinners that he does not know the quantity or quality of faith that is necessary for salvation."
No revelation, natural or special, is "sufficient" for saving faith - Garrett should know better than that. In damnation, Gentiles outside of special revelation were no more disadvantaged than Jews who had special revelation, according to Paul in Romans 3:9.
In mentally competent adults, the principle of grace infused by God at regeneration would embrace the revelation of God in nature as well any special revelation given by God, but it is not Paul's point in Romans 1 to give any hope of eternal salvation apart from special revelation.
Eternal salvation is never evidenced by a state of grace that is non-cognitive, but that does not mean that a state of grace is irreducible from cognitive faith, as the case of mentally handicapped and infants shows. The effectual calling of God of infants and the mentally in-firmed must inform a rational soteriology. In allowing for their calling, it is evident that a principle of grace is deposited by the Spirit of God - an incorruptible seed (1 John 3:9) - that is divisible from all spiritual evidences that follow it naturally as life allows, as fleshed out by Gill:
for his seed remaineth in him;
not the word of God, or the Gospel, though that is a seed which is sown by the ministers of it, and blessed by God, and by which he regenerates his people; and which having a place in their hearts, becomes the ingrafted word, and there abides, nor can it be rooted out; where it powerfully teaches to avoid sin, is an antidote against it, and a preservative from it: nor the Holy Spirit of God, though he is the author of the new birth, and the principle of all grace; and where he once is, he always abides; and through the power of his grace believers prevail against sin, and mortify the deeds of the body, and live: but rather the grace of the Spirit, the internal principle of grace in the soul, the new nature, or new man formed in the soul, is meant; which seminally contains all grace in it, and which, like seed, springs up and gradually increases, and always abides; and is pure and incorruptible, and neither sins itself, nor encourages sin, but opposes, checks, and prevents it:
Paul was describing the evidences of true possession of saving faith in Romans 10:9-10, not a plan for "magic word recital" that guarantees eternal life.
Garrett stated:
"Let us again ask Jason some questions for clarification. What is the least amount of knowledge that one must have in order to be judged to have "saving faith"? Can a person have a "general trust in the person of Christ" apart from special divine revelation? Did not Paul affirm that knowledge of Christ is only to be expected from those who have heard Christ preached?"
In this present gospel era, saving faith is judged relative to the gospel revelation of Jesus Christ as savior. If someone does not believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins, they cannot be judged to have saving faith - this is clear from Mark 16:16. One cannot know about Jesus Christ specifically except from special revelation. And, yes, Paul implies as Garrett questions in regard to the gospel supplying knowledge of Jesus Christ, but why would he say that if Garrett believes that Paul also taught that God could deliver the gospel directly per 1 Thess. 4:9? I'm not quite sure why Garrett felt these questions were necessary or clarifying. If a standard of gospel knowledge for viable faith is too high, Peter would have to be concluded as unregenerate when he was unclear on the need for Christ to die for the sins of His people in Matt. 16:22.
Garrett stated:
"Jason contradicts himself in the above words. He allows that a "general trust in the person of Christ" is "neccessary for saving faith," but then says that he does not have"liberty to judge" about the kind or amount of knowledge that is necessary. Did he not"judge" when he said that a "general trust" in Christ is necessary? Was this not a statement about the "amount" and "quality" of "saving faith" and understanding? Finally, do the scriptures not "judge" the amount and quality of that faith which is necessary for salvation?"
This is a ridiculous charge of Garrett. I said "amount" and "quality", not "kind". The point I made was that we are not at liberty to judge as to the extent of gospel knowledge necessary beyond a general trust in Christ. What fiction to claim this is a contradiction. I am simply harmonizing the facts we know of Peter into a more biblical soteriology. Obviously Peter had a basic trust in Jesus as Messiah, but he erred in trust and had incomplete knowledge of how Jesus would be Lord.
Garrett stated:
"Jason admits that the word "faith" is a word "that denotes cognitive action"! Has he not left Hardshellism by this affirmation? Praise the Lord! Why did he early on in our debate attempt to divorce cognition and knowledge from the definition of "faith"?"
Garrett is so eager to debate it clouds his judgment. Obviously, I was trying to clarify the use of a non-cognitive "faith" in this context. Calling it by another name doesn't overthrow the concept! I like Gill's use of a "principle of grace" for this concept rather than "faith" because it's less confusing. It should be apparent to Garrett that this distinction has been argued all along whether I called it the "root of faith", "fundamental faith", "rudimentary faith" etc. It was always Gill's principle of grace that was in view.
Garrett stated:
"I cannot believe that Jason would think that instances of doubt and lack of faith in the promises of God make a true believer become an unbeliever. Did Peter become an"unbeliever" when he denied the Lord? If so, then Peter did not lie when he said "I know not the man," and "I am not one of his disciples." If he was lost, then he told the truth when he confessed to not being a disciple of Jesus. But, if he was a disciple, and knew that he was, then he lied when he said he was not. I affirm that Peter was a believer but denied what he knew was the truth. Peter was still a believer in Jesus, though he denied it. Yes, there was a lack of faith, as far as courage and commitment are concerned, but there was no evidence that Peter had changed his mind relative to his confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter fell from his own "stedfastness." (II Peter 3: 17)"
In that Peter was lying in his denial, Garrett still has contradictions in his biblical understanding, as Garrett believes that Paul makes it clear that, "with the mouth confession is made unto eternal salvation (Romans 10:10)." This text, as Garrett understands it, makes public confession of Christ requisite for saving faith. Garrett's concession that Peter lacked courage and commitment is in direct contradiction with Paul's statement that whosoever truly believes will not be ashamed to confess Jesus Christ publicly (Romans 10:11).
By allowing that Peter still believed in his heart unto righteousness (Romans 10:10), Garrett divides confession from belief in Romans 10:10 - I imagine he finds this tortuous to concede. So we see that Garrett logically qualifies the confession of Romans 10:9,10 as an evidence only of eternal life. Then Garrett must allow that it is possible, though not characteristic of truly regenerate children of God, that faith can be an inner belief only without the evidence of confession, as in the case of Peter's unbelief.
What, then, could the salvation of confession be in Romans 10:10? It cannot be eternal salvation proper as if the confession of Jesus Christ causes eternal salvation, as Peter in his denial, as a regenerate man, fails this standard. Garrett is forced to concede that confession is simply consistent with truly possessing eternal salvation and is a "timely" means by which the regenerate lay hold of the knowledge of eternal life, not that eternal salvation is actually conferred by confession.
If Garrett interprets Paul to inseparably join confession with belief, Garrett would make public denial of Christ to be a denial of cognitive faith, which would prove either (1) Peter's unregenerate state or (2) that a cognitive faith is reducible to a non-cognitive principle of grace in it's barest essence, as a tree can be dead in it's trunk and branches above the ground - with the remaining life force in the roots that will produce a shoot that will replace the original tree.
It's "Hardshellism" by either conditional time salvation or a Spirit Alone view of a seed of faith, unless Garrett claims that Peter was unregenerate.
Garrett stated:
""Them" refers to those who "know not God" and who "obey not the gospel." Yes, they are not elect, but that is to be inferred from other passages, not from the immediate context."
If Garrett agrees the "them" is the non-elect, it will not matter if it is inferred from the immediate context or the broader context of the whole counsel of God in terms of the theological applicability of this passage. He concedes that the "them" is the non-elect. I never disputed the fact that the descriptions of the "them" are of not knowing God or obeying the gospel.
Garrett stated:
"Jason reads the words of Paul in this manner - "those non-elect who know not God and obey not the gospel." But, this rephrasing of the words would seem to imply that some non-elect do know God and do obey the gospel."
No, it doesn't imply that. I do not see at all why the text would intimate that idea. Any sense of limitation on the descriptions of knowing not God and obeying not the gospel would be absolved in the context of the "them" being the non-elect that are still living and actively persecuting the Church on the earth at the second coming of Christ. Those descriptions are universally descriptive of the non-elect during the entire gospel era, but all of the non-elect do not seem to be Paul's contextual reference, as he refers to those that militate against the Church.
Garrett stated:
" If these two descriptive expressions describe all the non-elect, and them only, then would not the counter terms describe all the elect? That the elect are they who "know God" and who "obey the gospel"? Jason wants us to believe that "them that know not God and who obey not the gospel" may be predicated of those who are regenerated as well as of those who are not. Absurd."
Yes, that would be absurd. I'm relieved I don't believe that. The two converse expressions would describe the elect that were under the sound of the gospel.
Garrett stated:
"He speaks of the description being "made to apply" to regenerated people! Who but a Hardshell could possibly see that in Paul's words?"
Garrett seems to forget that I was arguing against his idea that Paul had in mind anyone that had ever disobeyed the gospel. Garrett at the beginning argued for that view. If the text populates the "them" according to that standard it would logically include the elect that disobeyed the gospel before they were quickened. The "them" is contextually constrained to those persecuting the Church at the second coming of Christ, but it is applicable in principle to any that disobey the gospel, as such behavior evidences eternal damnation.
Garrett stated:
"One wonders how scripture could be any plainer in condemning all who reject Christ. How would Jason affirm the propostion that says all unbelievers will be lost? Let him put such an affirmation into words and I bet you I can show those same words in scripture. If the scriptures I have cited do not teach that all who reject Christ are lost, then how would it be stated any plainer? The fact that the faith and obedience of the children of God is not perfect does not negate faith and obedience being necessary for being eternally saved."
It is teaching in principle that those who reject Christ will be damned. There is no hope of eternal life beyond embracing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Gospel disobedience is an evidence of eternal damnation, but obviously, as Peter, an instance of gospel disobedience does not necessarily equate to eternal damnation. All those under the sound of the gospel that are truly regenerated will believe in Christ on some cognitive level, as the Spirit would testify of the truth of the gospel (Romans 8:14,16). Faith and obedience are characteristic of truly regenerate individuals, and it is characteristic of those preserved in Christ that they persevere in faith and holiness (1 John 5:3-5).
Garrett stated:
"Jason does not represent my views, or supposed "error," correctly. I never affirmed that"them" did or could refer to any of the regenerate. Again, Jason is fighting straw men. He wants to argue with plain declarations of scripture which say all those who do not believe in Christ will be damned. Further, when the regenerate are called "believers," it does not mean that they have perfect faith, and that they are never, in any sense, guilty of unbelief."
If Garrett qualifies 2 Thess. 1:7-9 away from any acts of gospel disobedience by the regenerate, like Peter, he must concede that the gospel disobedience of 2 Thess is a degree of disobedience, not just any disobedience, which is what I always argued about this passage! I always argued that the passage should be understood in terms of what would be characteristic of one's life. Only the unregenerate are capable of complete unbelief and gospel disobedience, which is the degree of gospel disobedience under consideration. Why did he argue against this view originally, and then concede here that the disobedience under consideration is a degree of disobedience from which the regenerate are clearly excluded? He here contradicts his original position.
Garrett stated:
"Can one who's life is characterized by unbelief and gospel disobedience be saved? Only a Hardshell heretic would affirm such. Jason will acknowledge that the regenerated are described as being "led of the Spirit," but why does he reject "believer" as being descriptive of the regenerated? Are not the terms "believer" and "unbeliever," in scripture, not titles of saved versus lost people?"
One whose life is characterized by unbelief was not saved by Christ, unless they are quickened late or at the end of life, of course. Pervasive unbelief is not characteristic of those truly regenerate. I have never rejected "believer" as being descriptive of the regenerate. What I have argued against is limiting the regenerate to NT, gospel believers. In the Scripture, under the sound of the gospel, believer and unbeliever are titles of those redeemed by Christ and those foreordained to damnation.
Garrett stated:
"Jason allows that "pervasive unbelief" can characterize or describe born again people! Further, he wants to say that the "pervasive unbelief" of the "regenerated" will only bring them physical death, but not eternal death! How unscriptural, as I have shown! What is it that those who sow to Spirit receive for their sowing? Is it not "eternal life"? Then why say that the sowing to the flesh is not eternal death? "Consistency thou art a jewel.""
I never said that pervasive unbelief characterizes the born again. I plainly reserved such a description for the unregenerate. Garrett asked me how pervasive unbelief could be in a child of God. To that I responded that unbelief could be sufficient enough to ruin a child of God's life. I was not admitting 'pervasive unbelief' as I defined in reference to the unregenerate, I was indicating the degree of unbelief that can exist in the regenerate. See how Garrett falsely characterizes my statements to give the impression of a contradiction, but there is no content to his characterization. Debate for debate's sake! Where has truth flown?
The examples I gave of the degree of unbelief of which the regenerate are capable - and the consequence of physical death - were not my own. They are plainly in the Scripture in Samson and King Josiah. Does Garrett place Samson and King Josiah in eternal death? My examples were Scriptural.
Why limit the context of Gal. 6:7,8 to an eternal context? It entails a contrast of time to eternity. The ultimate result of sowing to the flesh or of the spirit is eternal death or life, obviously - I certainly agree with Garrett in principle. But, this is not to say that children of God may not "groan in disgrace rather than grow in grace", if they fail to mortify the deeds of the body.
The word for corruption - φθοράν - denotes temporal decay, as in 1 Cor. 15:42 or 2 Peter 2:12. There is no compelling reason to limit the use of this word to eternal death in this context. The point of the text is that everything sown to the flesh is transient. The contrast is to transience versus immortality, not eternal life and death, as in, "lay not for yourselves treasures on earth where moth and rust doth corrupt." I recall on studying this text that Gill agrees with this exegesis. Garrett looks for "Hardshellism" where it isn't and objects to it even when it's justified. Can any reader doubt his prejudice, especially as pertaining to this text? How about some Biblical exegesis before accusing me of inconsistency?
Garrett stated:
"Further, where has Jason proven that those "redeemed out of" all the kindreds of the earth were saved apart from that faith which comes by hearing the word of God? Again, why can he not simply cite clear statements of scripture that say some are saved apart from faith?"
Garrett obviously does not believe the gospel has been preached by man to all nations that have ever existed. So he must consider that God has preached the gospel directly. But, how does this square with Paul in Romans 10:14? Paul does not allow in this text that any outside of special revelation can hear unless a preacher be sent. Sending a preacher is not God going Himself.
Garrett stated:
"What an admission! If Jason is correct, and he is, then why has God not sent Hardshell preachers to all these heathen elect?"
Maybe God has. Besides, God can use a gospel preached of contention to instruct - the impure gospel as preached by other orders could still be some measure of temporal blessing. Who knows that there are even "many" elect among the heathen, especially before the gospel era? Paul stated that the gospel had been preached as far as God intended at the time of Paul (Romans 10:18).
Garrett stated:
"Further, why does Jason not also "find it inconsistent" for the scriptures to say that all unbelievers will be damned and for Hardshells to deny it?"
I have stated many times that it is erroneous for some present Primitive Baptists to affirm that, under the sound of the gospel, the regenerate will totally reject Christ. These Primitive Baptists are in error, but these quasi-universalists are not the majority.
Garrett stated:
"Further, Jason misrepresents again Dr. Gill. If he would recall the citations I gave from Gill's writings on saving faith, Gill plainly said that it had Christ for its object. In Jason's latest post, he even cites me where I cite these words of Gill - "God the Son is the object of faith.""
Garrett is incorrect. In Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14, regarding which Garrett and I were arguing about Gill's comments in regard to infants, Gill stated that faith could be made to grasp "the proper object of faith". Gill did not - in this context - state that the faith of the unevangelized had Christ as it's object. My argument was that if Gill intended to say that the object of faith was Christ, he would have stated it as such. But, it is clear that Gill was not referring to the knowledge of Christ because the faith Gill was theorizing that God could work in the unevangelized was APART FROM THE WORD. Gill stated this clearly in his commentary.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
Garrett's Comments 11-4-11
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/does-david-pyles-agree.html
Garrett stated:
"On saving faith, Dr. Gill wrote:
"...certain it is that salvation is promised to faith, and connected with it, "He that believes shall be saved", and is what faith issues in; true believers receive "the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls" (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 1:9), and this is the faith that is to be treated of; and next will be considered,
Secondly, God the Son is the object of faith...his miracles, were written by the evangelists, "that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing, they might have life through his name" (John 20:31)...Knowledge of Christ is necessary to the exercise of faith on him, for "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" and if they have not so much as heard of him, they cannot know him, and consequently cannot exercise faith upon him; and "How shall they hear without a preacher" to make him known unto them? (Rom. 10:14)." These words of Dr. Gill uproot Hardshellism! First, he does not define the "faith" that saves as being non-cognitive, as does Jason. He does not even say - "unless Paul is talking about a non-cognitive faith." When Gill thought that two or more interpretations of certain passages were possible, and which he could not say for sure which was the original intent of the writer, he would say it may mean this, or it may mean that, or say it means this, "unless" he means that. But, here Paul gives only one possible interpretation. It is this; The "faith" that saves is the faith that is cognitive, and that cannot be divorced from knowledge. "
I agree that saving faith embraces the knowledge of revelation available - my point is that believers do not perfectly embrace this knowledge at all times. Abraham believed God's promise and Christ's righteousness was imputed to him, but Abraham later scoffed at the means by which God would bring about this promise in Sarah. Abraham still possessed saving faith in the general promise of God, but did not perfectly embrace the promise of God similar to Peter's lack of faith in the entire mission of Jesus.
We are not at liberty to judge what amount or quality of knowledge is necessary for saving faith beyond a general trust in the person of Christ. We cannot judge the heart, afterall, and must allow that individuals can be intellectually confused on the gospel, but be sincere children of God.
Garrett stated:
"Notice that Gill does not say that a certain kind of faith is cognitive and has knowledge, but says "faith," denoting one kind. Faith was never given a Hardshell definition by the new testament writers, and not by Dr. Gill. Hardshells often speak of the faith that is given in regeneration as being non-cognitive and without knowledge. And, they cannot show from scripture how their definition of a non-cognitive and ignorant faith is taught and described. Gill says that faith and faith knowledge are necessary for being saved. Again, it is Hardshellism uprooted. Gill does not say "saving knowledge is only a necessary ingredient to this kind of faith, but is not necessary to another kind of faith.""
Gill plainly divorced the "principle of grace infused by regeneration" from gospel faith here:
"It 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."
This idea of a "principle of grace" was the non-cognitive element that Gill stated is implanted in infants in his Romans 10:14 commentary. Whether we call this a "principle of grace" or "implanted faith" - perhaps 'faith' is the wrong term to use for this, as it is confusing to use a word that denotes cognitive action - it results in the deposit of some spiritual element that is irreducible to cognitive action. Gill never states that infants exhibit cognitive action or that God imbues them with cognitive powers so they can exercise faith - this is Garrett stretching to find support in Gill for an idea that is only in Garrett's mind. I'll deal with Garrett's comments on Gill's Romans 10:14 commentary in a moment.
Garrett stated:
"So? How is his view on eternal justification a contradiction to his view on regeneration and saving faith? "
Gill plainly claims that faith is not a "causa sine qua non" for justification and, ultimately, eternal salvation, as the case of elect infants shows. It is inconsistent, in a systematic work, for Gill to allow this, and yet claim that it is God's "normal way" to save his people (adults being a minority in comparison to the infants that have died in infancy) by the preaching of the gospel.
Garrett stated:
"Does Gill contradict himself on infants? Perhaps. But, rather than indict him on the charge of being "inconsistent" or "contradictory," I would rather seek to see how he may be interpreted so as not to be thought of as inconsistent. Jason wants to argue this proposition - "since Gill taught that justification did not require faith, therefore he must have believed that regeneration, rebirth, and quickening, likewise do not require faith." But, the proposition is false."
Garrett made me chuckle a bit here. Garrett cannot help but prove that Gill contradicted himself. Garrett has already admitted that Gill taught in his writing on Eternal Justification that infants do not have gospel faith. If Garrett proves, as he is trying to prove, that Gill taught that infants do have gospel faith in Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14, he demonstrates an elementary contradiction in Gill.
Next, I have never argued that Gill believed that it was ordinary for mentally competent adults to be regenerated or quickened without coming to faith in Christ. This accusation of Garrett is insulting. Gill obviously claims in Romans 10:14 the opposite of this, but he does not preclude that God regenerates apart from the word, by His Spirit alone. The point I've made is that Gill's doctrine of eternal justification is not as systematically consistent with his view of regeneration and effectual calling as it would be if he used what he admits of infants as a paradigm for these doctrines.
Garrett stated:
"I have had to correct Jason more than once on the words "on the bases of," and other similar expressions in the bible and in the writings of Dr. Gill. Those Baptists who have believed in means in being born of God, like Dr. Gill and the Hardshell founding fathers, would never say that "faith" was ever "the basis of" justification, regeneration, or salvation. They did all say that faith was the "means," the way in which justification, regeneration, and salvation, are "received." All were lost who did not "receive" or "accept"the atonement, this wrought out justification and salvation. Gill always stated that faith is like the hand that obtains atonement and justification. No reception, then no justification or salvation."
The view that faith is the "means" of justification is the instrumental view of justification that Gill opposes, which Pink supports in contradiction to Gill:
"Some of the older theologians, when expounding this doctrine, contended for the eternal justification of the elect, affirming that God pronounced them righteous before the foundation of the world, and that their justification was then actual and complete, remaining so throughout their history in time, even during the days of their unregeneracy and unbelief; and that the only difference their faith made was in making manifest God's eternal justification in their consciences."
Gill denied that faith was the means of "receiving" justification, except in a fully subjective sense:
"Faith is not the cause, but an effect of justification; it is not the cause of it in any sense; it is not the moving cause, that is the free grace of God; "Being justified freely by his grace",#Ro 3:24 nor the efficient cause of it; "It is God that justifies", #Ro 8:33 nor the meritorious cause, as some express it; or the matter of it, that is the obedience and blood of Christ, #Ro 5:9,19 or the righteousness of Christ, consisting of his active and passive obedience; nor even the instrumental cause;"
I hope that Garrett is not trying to suggest that both can be true, which would be another Fuller-like absurdity. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Garrett hasn't accepted Fullerism in toto.
Garrett stated:
"Jason keeps wanting to ask, basically, is this - "how much faith (belief) must one have to be initially saved?" And then, "what if this amount of faith decreases? will salvation be lost?" But, he ought rather to be searching the scriptures, and the writings of Dr. Gill, for answers to these questions, for they answer them clearly."
In other words, Garrett cannot answer the logical objection. Instead of supposing something's rotten in the state of Demark - the Denmark of his theology - he would rather embrace seeming contradiction. How can you reason with that? Garrett always digs out the accusation of "Hardshell dependence on logic" whenever he's in trouble. He's begging the question in referring us to the Scripture - he means his interpretation of Scripture! What does Garrett suppose a Systematic Theology is? The logical implications of his interpretations are thrown to the wayside because they are subordinate to his certain interpretations? Garrett would rather give life to epithets rather than venture an intellectual attempt at systematizing the Scripture by reason.
Garrett stated:
"No, Paul always recognized Peter as a "believer." Even when we fall in unbelief, we are still believers, for the falls we have in unbelief, concern not the fundamental propositions of the gospel, but lessor areas of doctrine. It depends on the kind of "disobedience," the kind of "unbelief." Obviously! Peter's kind of unbelief and disobedience was not anything near the kind of unbelief and disobedience in unsaved people, people who are always styled as "heathen" or "unbelievers."
Even when we fall in unbelief, we are still believers. What? When you can embrace logical contradiction, you can believe anything at whim, apparently. What was Peter's unbelief? Was it a lesser doctrine? It was a public disavowal of any knowledge of Jesus Christ! Is there anything more core to the gospel than that?! Paul stated CLEARLY in Romans 10:11, "For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Could Peter deny the gospel any more clearly, if "...with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:10)"? In the moment of Peter's denial of Jesus, his unbelief was the same as any heathen or unbeliever's unbelief that loves his life too much to lose it. I apologize if I come across as intolerant, Brother Garrett.
Garrett stated:
"Garrett was correct about II Thess. 1: 7-9 and showed how Jason does not know the difference between a universal categorical proposition and a limited one. Garrett has also referred to II Thess. 2: 12 where Paul said - "that they ALL might be damned who believed not the truth..." How is that not universal? He also spoke of those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (vs. 11) "
I never claimed that Paul did not have a universal category in mind - my claim has always been that Garrett commits a category error of what that category can possibly be. The "them" obviously refers to the non-elect who know not God and disobey the gospel. How could it refer to the elect who have disobeyed the gospel like Peter? It, therefore, cannot be made to apply to anyone that has ever disobeyed the gospel in any way, as that would include the elect. Garrett's error is in supposing that the "them" includes anyone that has ever been guilty of gospel disobedience. How is it possible to hold that view and believe anyone will go to heaven?
As I've argued, he commit's a category mistake in ascribing gospel disobedience universally in these passages, as it obviously refers to the category of the "them" in 2 Thess. 1:7-9. It is a "universal" category of the "them" and "all" under consideration in these passages.
Garrett stated:
"Jason says that "pervasive unbelief of revelation" is "not taught in the New Testament." But, suppose we deal with him with our own rhetoricals? What do you mean by"pervasive unbelief"? How pervasive can it be, or not be? Is being a heathen or pagan in belief part of the definition of "pervasive unbelief"?"
Pervasive unbelief is a life characterized by gospel disobedience and the attendant suppression of the truth and hatred of God. The Scripture plainly identifies those that have been truly regenerated as being led of the spirit of God (Romans 8:14) and manifestly distinguishable from the children of the devil (1 John 3:10). As to how pervasive unbelief can be in children of God, it can completely ruin their lives. It will have the consequence of death, for he that sows to the flesh shall of the flesh receive corruption - be not deceived, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7,8). King Josiah and Samson's fate would be the ultimate result.
As Gill allows, God can regenerate among the pagans apart from the word. We simply do not know on what scale this has been done, but it is true that God has a people redeemed out of literally every kindred, tongue, and people. At the same time, in an era of the revealed gospel, I find it inconsistent to suppose that God would regenerate men without impressing gospel ministers to attend to their instruction in this life. For, though men under the sound of the gospel may remain obstinate for some time, they have themselves to blame for the chastisement of God, the pagan man waits for the revelation of the sons of God, which is a forlorn affair if he has no man to guide him.
Garrett stated:
"Simple answer! The cognitive ability of John the Baptist, while in his mother's womb, was supernatural, not what was natural! Further, we are not talking about infants being regenerated but who do not die in infancy. We are not talking about someone who was regenerated in infancy and yet grew up into children or adults. We are talking about those who die in infancy, who must have been regenerated, if we believe that any or all of them go to heaven. John Gill, like those who wrote the London Confession of 1689, taught that the regeneration of infants was God's extraordinary way of regenerating men. I also showed that many of them, including Gill, still did not divorce the experience of regeneration from coming to know and believe in Christ, or from repentance, or from the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, affirming that God did this apart from human gospel preachers."
Why does Garrett limit regeneration of elect infants to only those that die in infancy? Does he not argue that John the Baptist was regenerated in his mother's womb? Was not Jacob imbued with the principle of grace in that he wrestled with his brother Esau in the womb, manifesting the manner of two peoples? Garrett ignored my observation that Gill does not make the 'proper object of faith' Jesus Christ, which Gill would make clear if he considered that God preached the gospel directly.
Garrett stated:
"Wrong! He had not excluded infants and this is evident from his use of the word "also" in"also of such persons." Does Gill not say that the mentally incompetent may still be"enabled" by omnipotence to "exercise" faith in Christ and to call upon his name? If you allow that God can do this with the mentally incompetent, then why not with infants?"
Garrett has problems here. Gill plainly stated at the beginning of his commentary on Romans 10:14 that infants were not intended by the text, which excludes them from the preponderance of Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14. Second, the "also" refers to his next point about to whom Romans 10:14 is addressed: those adults outside of special revelation, which he denies is infants again by saying 'not of those that never could hear and speak'! Gill would obviously exclude the mentally incompetent inasmuch as they cannot hear or speak intelligibly anymore than infants!
I hope I have not come across in an uncharitable manner in this posting. Let us make the glory of Christ preeminent, and I have enjoyed the opportunity to debate these issues with Brother Garrett.
Garrett stated:
"On saving faith, Dr. Gill wrote:
"...certain it is that salvation is promised to faith, and connected with it, "He that believes shall be saved", and is what faith issues in; true believers receive "the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls" (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 1:9), and this is the faith that is to be treated of; and next will be considered,
Secondly, God the Son is the object of faith...his miracles, were written by the evangelists, "that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing, they might have life through his name" (John 20:31)...Knowledge of Christ is necessary to the exercise of faith on him, for "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" and if they have not so much as heard of him, they cannot know him, and consequently cannot exercise faith upon him; and "How shall they hear without a preacher" to make him known unto them? (Rom. 10:14)." These words of Dr. Gill uproot Hardshellism! First, he does not define the "faith" that saves as being non-cognitive, as does Jason. He does not even say - "unless Paul is talking about a non-cognitive faith." When Gill thought that two or more interpretations of certain passages were possible, and which he could not say for sure which was the original intent of the writer, he would say it may mean this, or it may mean that, or say it means this, "unless" he means that. But, here Paul gives only one possible interpretation. It is this; The "faith" that saves is the faith that is cognitive, and that cannot be divorced from knowledge. "
I agree that saving faith embraces the knowledge of revelation available - my point is that believers do not perfectly embrace this knowledge at all times. Abraham believed God's promise and Christ's righteousness was imputed to him, but Abraham later scoffed at the means by which God would bring about this promise in Sarah. Abraham still possessed saving faith in the general promise of God, but did not perfectly embrace the promise of God similar to Peter's lack of faith in the entire mission of Jesus.
We are not at liberty to judge what amount or quality of knowledge is necessary for saving faith beyond a general trust in the person of Christ. We cannot judge the heart, afterall, and must allow that individuals can be intellectually confused on the gospel, but be sincere children of God.
Garrett stated:
"Notice that Gill does not say that a certain kind of faith is cognitive and has knowledge, but says "faith," denoting one kind. Faith was never given a Hardshell definition by the new testament writers, and not by Dr. Gill. Hardshells often speak of the faith that is given in regeneration as being non-cognitive and without knowledge. And, they cannot show from scripture how their definition of a non-cognitive and ignorant faith is taught and described. Gill says that faith and faith knowledge are necessary for being saved. Again, it is Hardshellism uprooted. Gill does not say "saving knowledge is only a necessary ingredient to this kind of faith, but is not necessary to another kind of faith.""
Gill plainly divorced the "principle of grace infused by regeneration" from gospel faith here:
"It 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."
This idea of a "principle of grace" was the non-cognitive element that Gill stated is implanted in infants in his Romans 10:14 commentary. Whether we call this a "principle of grace" or "implanted faith" - perhaps 'faith' is the wrong term to use for this, as it is confusing to use a word that denotes cognitive action - it results in the deposit of some spiritual element that is irreducible to cognitive action. Gill never states that infants exhibit cognitive action or that God imbues them with cognitive powers so they can exercise faith - this is Garrett stretching to find support in Gill for an idea that is only in Garrett's mind. I'll deal with Garrett's comments on Gill's Romans 10:14 commentary in a moment.
Garrett stated:
"So? How is his view on eternal justification a contradiction to his view on regeneration and saving faith? "
Gill plainly claims that faith is not a "causa sine qua non" for justification and, ultimately, eternal salvation, as the case of elect infants shows. It is inconsistent, in a systematic work, for Gill to allow this, and yet claim that it is God's "normal way" to save his people (adults being a minority in comparison to the infants that have died in infancy) by the preaching of the gospel.
Garrett stated:
"Does Gill contradict himself on infants? Perhaps. But, rather than indict him on the charge of being "inconsistent" or "contradictory," I would rather seek to see how he may be interpreted so as not to be thought of as inconsistent. Jason wants to argue this proposition - "since Gill taught that justification did not require faith, therefore he must have believed that regeneration, rebirth, and quickening, likewise do not require faith." But, the proposition is false."
Garrett made me chuckle a bit here. Garrett cannot help but prove that Gill contradicted himself. Garrett has already admitted that Gill taught in his writing on Eternal Justification that infants do not have gospel faith. If Garrett proves, as he is trying to prove, that Gill taught that infants do have gospel faith in Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14, he demonstrates an elementary contradiction in Gill.
Next, I have never argued that Gill believed that it was ordinary for mentally competent adults to be regenerated or quickened without coming to faith in Christ. This accusation of Garrett is insulting. Gill obviously claims in Romans 10:14 the opposite of this, but he does not preclude that God regenerates apart from the word, by His Spirit alone. The point I've made is that Gill's doctrine of eternal justification is not as systematically consistent with his view of regeneration and effectual calling as it would be if he used what he admits of infants as a paradigm for these doctrines.
Garrett stated:
"I have had to correct Jason more than once on the words "on the bases of," and other similar expressions in the bible and in the writings of Dr. Gill. Those Baptists who have believed in means in being born of God, like Dr. Gill and the Hardshell founding fathers, would never say that "faith" was ever "the basis of" justification, regeneration, or salvation. They did all say that faith was the "means," the way in which justification, regeneration, and salvation, are "received." All were lost who did not "receive" or "accept"the atonement, this wrought out justification and salvation. Gill always stated that faith is like the hand that obtains atonement and justification. No reception, then no justification or salvation."
The view that faith is the "means" of justification is the instrumental view of justification that Gill opposes, which Pink supports in contradiction to Gill:
"Some of the older theologians, when expounding this doctrine, contended for the eternal justification of the elect, affirming that God pronounced them righteous before the foundation of the world, and that their justification was then actual and complete, remaining so throughout their history in time, even during the days of their unregeneracy and unbelief; and that the only difference their faith made was in making manifest God's eternal justification in their consciences."
Gill denied that faith was the means of "receiving" justification, except in a fully subjective sense:
"Faith is not the cause, but an effect of justification; it is not the cause of it in any sense; it is not the moving cause, that is the free grace of God; "Being justified freely by his grace",#Ro 3:24 nor the efficient cause of it; "It is God that justifies", #Ro 8:33 nor the meritorious cause, as some express it; or the matter of it, that is the obedience and blood of Christ, #Ro 5:9,19 or the righteousness of Christ, consisting of his active and passive obedience; nor even the instrumental cause;"
I hope that Garrett is not trying to suggest that both can be true, which would be another Fuller-like absurdity. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Garrett hasn't accepted Fullerism in toto.
Garrett stated:
"Jason keeps wanting to ask, basically, is this - "how much faith (belief) must one have to be initially saved?" And then, "what if this amount of faith decreases? will salvation be lost?" But, he ought rather to be searching the scriptures, and the writings of Dr. Gill, for answers to these questions, for they answer them clearly."
In other words, Garrett cannot answer the logical objection. Instead of supposing something's rotten in the state of Demark - the Denmark of his theology - he would rather embrace seeming contradiction. How can you reason with that? Garrett always digs out the accusation of "Hardshell dependence on logic" whenever he's in trouble. He's begging the question in referring us to the Scripture - he means his interpretation of Scripture! What does Garrett suppose a Systematic Theology is? The logical implications of his interpretations are thrown to the wayside because they are subordinate to his certain interpretations? Garrett would rather give life to epithets rather than venture an intellectual attempt at systematizing the Scripture by reason.
Garrett stated:
"No, Paul always recognized Peter as a "believer." Even when we fall in unbelief, we are still believers, for the falls we have in unbelief, concern not the fundamental propositions of the gospel, but lessor areas of doctrine. It depends on the kind of "disobedience," the kind of "unbelief." Obviously! Peter's kind of unbelief and disobedience was not anything near the kind of unbelief and disobedience in unsaved people, people who are always styled as "heathen" or "unbelievers."
Even when we fall in unbelief, we are still believers. What? When you can embrace logical contradiction, you can believe anything at whim, apparently. What was Peter's unbelief? Was it a lesser doctrine? It was a public disavowal of any knowledge of Jesus Christ! Is there anything more core to the gospel than that?! Paul stated CLEARLY in Romans 10:11, "For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Could Peter deny the gospel any more clearly, if "...with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom. 10:10)"? In the moment of Peter's denial of Jesus, his unbelief was the same as any heathen or unbeliever's unbelief that loves his life too much to lose it. I apologize if I come across as intolerant, Brother Garrett.
Garrett stated:
"Garrett was correct about II Thess. 1: 7-9 and showed how Jason does not know the difference between a universal categorical proposition and a limited one. Garrett has also referred to II Thess. 2: 12 where Paul said - "that they ALL might be damned who believed not the truth..." How is that not universal? He also spoke of those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (vs. 11) "
I never claimed that Paul did not have a universal category in mind - my claim has always been that Garrett commits a category error of what that category can possibly be. The "them" obviously refers to the non-elect who know not God and disobey the gospel. How could it refer to the elect who have disobeyed the gospel like Peter? It, therefore, cannot be made to apply to anyone that has ever disobeyed the gospel in any way, as that would include the elect. Garrett's error is in supposing that the "them" includes anyone that has ever been guilty of gospel disobedience. How is it possible to hold that view and believe anyone will go to heaven?
As I've argued, he commit's a category mistake in ascribing gospel disobedience universally in these passages, as it obviously refers to the category of the "them" in 2 Thess. 1:7-9. It is a "universal" category of the "them" and "all" under consideration in these passages.
Garrett stated:
"Jason says that "pervasive unbelief of revelation" is "not taught in the New Testament." But, suppose we deal with him with our own rhetoricals? What do you mean by"pervasive unbelief"? How pervasive can it be, or not be? Is being a heathen or pagan in belief part of the definition of "pervasive unbelief"?"
Pervasive unbelief is a life characterized by gospel disobedience and the attendant suppression of the truth and hatred of God. The Scripture plainly identifies those that have been truly regenerated as being led of the spirit of God (Romans 8:14) and manifestly distinguishable from the children of the devil (1 John 3:10). As to how pervasive unbelief can be in children of God, it can completely ruin their lives. It will have the consequence of death, for he that sows to the flesh shall of the flesh receive corruption - be not deceived, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7,8). King Josiah and Samson's fate would be the ultimate result.
As Gill allows, God can regenerate among the pagans apart from the word. We simply do not know on what scale this has been done, but it is true that God has a people redeemed out of literally every kindred, tongue, and people. At the same time, in an era of the revealed gospel, I find it inconsistent to suppose that God would regenerate men without impressing gospel ministers to attend to their instruction in this life. For, though men under the sound of the gospel may remain obstinate for some time, they have themselves to blame for the chastisement of God, the pagan man waits for the revelation of the sons of God, which is a forlorn affair if he has no man to guide him.
Garrett stated:
"Simple answer! The cognitive ability of John the Baptist, while in his mother's womb, was supernatural, not what was natural! Further, we are not talking about infants being regenerated but who do not die in infancy. We are not talking about someone who was regenerated in infancy and yet grew up into children or adults. We are talking about those who die in infancy, who must have been regenerated, if we believe that any or all of them go to heaven. John Gill, like those who wrote the London Confession of 1689, taught that the regeneration of infants was God's extraordinary way of regenerating men. I also showed that many of them, including Gill, still did not divorce the experience of regeneration from coming to know and believe in Christ, or from repentance, or from the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, affirming that God did this apart from human gospel preachers."
Why does Garrett limit regeneration of elect infants to only those that die in infancy? Does he not argue that John the Baptist was regenerated in his mother's womb? Was not Jacob imbued with the principle of grace in that he wrestled with his brother Esau in the womb, manifesting the manner of two peoples? Garrett ignored my observation that Gill does not make the 'proper object of faith' Jesus Christ, which Gill would make clear if he considered that God preached the gospel directly.
Garrett stated:
"Wrong! He had not excluded infants and this is evident from his use of the word "also" in"also of such persons." Does Gill not say that the mentally incompetent may still be"enabled" by omnipotence to "exercise" faith in Christ and to call upon his name? If you allow that God can do this with the mentally incompetent, then why not with infants?"
Garrett has problems here. Gill plainly stated at the beginning of his commentary on Romans 10:14 that infants were not intended by the text, which excludes them from the preponderance of Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14. Second, the "also" refers to his next point about to whom Romans 10:14 is addressed: those adults outside of special revelation, which he denies is infants again by saying 'not of those that never could hear and speak'! Gill would obviously exclude the mentally incompetent inasmuch as they cannot hear or speak intelligibly anymore than infants!
I hope I have not come across in an uncharitable manner in this posting. Let us make the glory of Christ preeminent, and I have enjoyed the opportunity to debate these issues with Brother Garrett.
Elder David Pyles
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/does-david-pyles-agree.html and http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/10/jason-browns-latest.html
Garrett stated:
"Does David Pyles agree with Jason? That the elect who hear the gospel will believe it? Are those who are preaching this being well received by today's Hardshells? Does he agree with Jason that the split with the Absoluters should not have occurred? Again, what will today's Hardshells think of that?"
I cannot speak for Elder David Pyles definitively. I have corresponded with him in years past in a few emails in which he testified to me from his travels that only a minor group of Primitive Baptists were given over to universalism and an unbiblical application of conditional time salvation. Elder David is an agreement with the idea that the Bible presents unbelief in the gospel as characteristic of the eternally damned, as can be seen from his article online, "Extent of the Gospel", which Garrett has reviewed and criticized on the "Baptist Gadfly".
Yet, he allows, as I allow, that the elect can be hindered in obedience to the gospel, and that God has blessed some of the elect with a greater knowledge of the gospel than others, as can be seen by contrasting Old and New Testament believers.
I have read him argue on his list server at pb.org, before he dissolved it, that he believed that Mark 16:16 evidences the general truth that, of those that do hear the preached gospel by man, one that does not believe it shall be eternally damned and he that does believe it will be eternally saved.
I do not believe there is any disagreement with him and his father, Elder Sonny, as he mentioned in email correspondence to me Elder Sonny's rejection of universalist applications of Conditional Time Salvation, and Elder Sonny states in his sermon (available here: http://www.primitivebaptistsermons.org/sermons.php?page=75&st=&searchFor= - select the "Will All the Elect Hear and Obey the Gospel" that is divided into two parts, as the one shown as Gal. 3:8 on the same topic is the same sermon with the beginning minutes cut off) that unbiblical teaching of conditional time salvation was used to justify universalism. Their views from preaching on this subject seem to be harmonious.
The only theoretical point of difference I have been able to infer between David and Sonny Pyles is that Elder David seems to subscribe to an instrumental view of justification, and all the sermons I have ever heard in which teaching on justification has come up from Elder Sonny (And I have listened to everything available) evidences Elder Sonny's support of eternal justification. This "difference" would have very little practical application as they both view the effectual call to be of the Spirit alone, and would only be evident in the precise application of certain texts like, Ephes. 2:8 in terms of whether the 'through faith' indicates instrumentality to the end of eternal life or references a subjective knowledge of eternal salvation.
I just listened to a magnificent sermon by Sonny Pyles on 1 John 3:9 (Whosoever is Born of God http://www.primitivebaptistsermons.org/sermons.php?page=74&st=&searchFor=) in which Pyles argued for a positional, eternal application of this text by virtue of the elect being born into the relation of the family of God. The full appreciation of such a sermon is not possible unless one understands the systematic consistency of such an emphasis in the larger context of an eternal covenant.
Where I might proffer a caveat to this emphasis of fully delineating fellowship from relationship in 1 John, and I do so with much caution in deference to Elder Sonny, is how the succeeding text of 1 John applies the relational, positional truth of 3:9: "In THIS the children of God ARE MANIFEST, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." There is clearly here a presumption of fellowship in those truly related. I would suspect that such a caveat as I offer would not be far from Elder David's consideration.
As reagrding Absoluters, I do not know his precise view. Most Primitive Baptist Absoluters enthusiastically affirm God's causative and positive relationship to sin in a way that is unscriptural. I don't think these could be fellowshipped. But, regarding the views of Hassell or Oliphant in regard to Romans 8:28, or God's absolute Providence, I doubt very seriously that Elder David Pyles would accuse them of teaching the Absoluter heresy proper: that God's attitude to sin is the same as God's attitude toward grace and holiness. As far as I know, he fully agrees with the Fulton brethren. Some ignorant Primitive Baptists accuse the Fulton brethren of being Absoluters as well, which I think I can safely presume that Elder David would deny.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Garrett's Comments on 2 Timothy 2 (11-1-11)
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-on-ii-tim-2.html
Garrett stated:
"If I am at times unclear about what Jason argues, it is because his arguments at times are not well constructed or stated."
Perhaps Garrett's passion to oppose "Hardshellism" in conclusion prevents sincere and unbiased appraisal of any chain of reasoning but what is clearly in support of his presupposition.
Garrett stated:
"I gave good reasons for going with the first interpretation given by Gill, reasons that Jason failed to respond to. Further, in the citation, Gill denied that any who reject Christ would be saved. Jason ignored that part of the citation! Why? Because it shows he is no old Baptist and disagrees with Dr. Gill."
It is true that I did not address that part of Garret's writing. Not addressing his comments in that regard, however, is not a basis for the legitimacy of those comments. His comments were irrelevant because the real point was that Gill established two views of the text neither of which did he give preeminence over the other. It is unreasonable and beyond fact to affirm, as Garrett does, that Gill favored one view over the other when he did not state that he did. His argument here is pretentious in that manner, just like his rejection of Gill's teaching a "pre-faith" regeneration. If someone brings a viewpoint to the table that they defend from Scripture and do not clearly controvert, one cannot reasonably deny they advocated it (Gill argues strict regeneration is taught in 1 John 3:9 as a direct reference and argues that 2 Timothy 2:13 defends the idea of unbelief in the saints as in Peter).
Besides, Gill used 2 Timothy 2:13, interpreted as I interpret it, to support his view of Eternal Justification! If we wanted to ascertain the inclination of Gill on this passage, would we not observe the manner in which he applied the text?
Gill:
"...a man is as much justified before as after it, in the account of God; and after he does believe, his justification does not depend on his acts of faith; for though "we believe not, yet he abides faithful"; that is, God is faithful to his covenant engagements with his Son, as their Surety, by whose suretyship-righteousness they are justified..."
Garrett stated:
"I never depicted Gill's commentary on 2 Tim. 2: 13 as "one-sided." That is not correct for I cited enough of the passage where Gill gave the alternate interpretation of the passage. But, I believe the passage refers to unsaved people, and that the statement about God being "faithful" is, as Gill allowed, meant "faithful to his threatenings." Yet, Gill did say that it may have reference to children of God who "believe not," or who lack sufficient faith, and I agree that God's people often lack sufficient faith, or are guilty of some measure of unbelief, and must say "I believe, help my unbelief." That is not the issue. It is a straw man. I don't believe that this verse teaches this, not that it is not taught elsewhere. "
Very well, then. Garrett freely admits that the principle of my interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:13 is taught in Scripture. It is immaterial to our overall debate whether or not we agree that this particular passage is teaching it. He claimed two paragraph's later from the above quoted:
"It is a teaching of scripture, that if believers, like Peter, deny Christ in a moment of weakness, that Christ will nevertheless not deny them. It is true that "if we believe not, yet" he will abide "faithful" to his covenant promise, or "if we are not faithful to him, yet he is faithful to us." But, I do not believe that this is what Paul is saying in II Tim. 2: 13. I gave good reasons for my view, one that better fits the context and syntax of the passage."
How does this unbelief in gospel truth at this point relate to the faith and belief that they must on some level possess per actual regeneration? In other words, what is the basis in this moment of unbelief upon which the security of eternal life rests, if faith can be "unexercised" in this manner? Garrett obviously does not believe that the regenerate, at this point of unbelief, are devoid of any faith or trust, for this would deny the work of regeneration. What is the nature of the faith that is a fruit of the spirit at the moment of this unbelief? Is it a dead faith (unregenerate) in this moment of unbelief because in this moment it has no works? What knowledge is the object of this "unexercised" faith in the moment of unbelief?
Whatever basis upon which Peter is secure in Christ in Peter's unbelief, whatever faith that Peter does have in this moment of unbelief is the measure of security and faith absolutely necessary to eternal life. Not that anyone has the logical liberty of applying this one moment as characteristic of children of God under the influence of the revealed gospel, but, as a matter of strict logic, the lowest common denominator must be reconciled. Peter's unbelief demonstrates, not that it is characteristic of the regenerate to not exercise faith, but what logically constitutes the barest essence of faith in God.
Incidentally, does Garrett believe Paul thinks Peter is damned for not obeying the gospel here, as I've asked Garrett before? Garrett is adamant that Paul makes the categorical assertion that all of those that do not obey shall be damned in 2 Thess. 1:7-9. Garrett would not allow that Paul means in relation to what is characteristic of one's overall life. So it logically follows without possibility of the contrary that Peter was eternally damned.
Peter's unbelief in the context of Matt. 16:22 was not simply a lack of trust in Jesus, it was a lack of correct knowledge of the gospel. He did not see the necessity of Christ's death - that's a core aspect of the gospel. What, then, was the object of Peter's faith at this time? Was it the parts of the gospel he did understand? If that's so, why does Garrett deny that some of the Gnostic professed believers may have been born again, seeing as they denied orthodoxy in regard to the resurrection, but still claimed Jesus Christ for salvation? Could they not, like Peter, be born again in affirming Christ as the son of God, but not see the logical incompatibility of the latter with the former, just as Peter?
Garrett stated:
"But, the main question keeps getting brushed aside! Does the bible, or Dr. Gill, teach that one can be an unbeliever and yet saved? Where has Jason ever proven this? Where has he shown that such a doctrine is taught in II Timothy 2? Further, Gill affirmed that faith was not necessary for the salvation of those who die in infancy. I disagree with him on this, although elsewhere in Gill's writings he did affirm that infants could possess faith and knowledge."
Garrett is assuming by his use of "unbeliever" in the first sentence a definition of "unbeliever" that entails, in one's life, pervasive unbelief. He already concedes that believers are capable of unbelief, which has always been my point. He dismisses my point as a straw man against his position, but I hope I have indicated in this post the logical problems with his position that arise once you admit any disbelief in children of God. I fully agree and have always agreed with him that a pervasive unbelief of revelation in regenerates under the sound of the gospel is not taught in the New Testament.
I can only assume from Garrett's insertion about Gill's view of infants above, that Garrett basically agrees with me that Gill's doctrine of Eternal Justification seems to have problems in consistency with Gill's view of regeneration and effectual calling.
But, it's worse than just infants. Gill referred to infants, not as an isolated case, but as a case that lends general support that faith is not a 'causa sine qua non'. Gill made application of faith not being a 'causa sine qua non' in his writing beyond the case of infants. Note the way he states:
""If faith is the instrument of our justification, it is the instrument either of God or man; not of man, for justification is God's act; he is the sole Justifier, #Ro 3:26 man doth not justify himself: nor of God, for it is not God that believes": nor is it a "causa sine qua non", as the case of elect infants shows;"
Plainly Gill uses infants, presuming their being without gospel faith, to prove the rule that personal faith has no direct, causal bearing on eternal justification, election, or eternal salvation. He then applies this to children of God that do not depend upon the exercising of faith for eternal justification, though they depend on it for the subjective knowledge of their justification:
"a man is as much justified before as after it, in the account of God; and after he does believe, his justification does not depend on his acts of faith; for though "we believe not, yet he abides faithful""
Logically, it seems, if Gill admits here that infants are eternally saved without gospel faith, it makes it arbitrary why he would not allow for this on a more general scale, as mental competent adults are a far minority to the countless millions that have died in infancy.
I would argue, therefore, that Gill's doctrine of Eternal Justification is more consistent systematically with a view of regeneration and effectual calling that is consistent with what Gill thought elect infants proved: eternal life by a faith more rudimentary than gospel faith.
In the Primitive Baptist view of regeneration and effectual calling, the case of elect infants is easily understood as an implantation of a seed of faith directly by the Spirit of God. This view is more germane to what Gill here admits that elect infants prove than is Gill's own view of regeneration in regard to adults because it makes sense of Romans 4:16.
Next, I want to examine Garrett's quotation of Gill where Garrett argues that Gill did not exclude faith in Christ in infants:
""This is to be understood of outward hearing of the word, and of adult persons only; for that, infants may have the grace of regeneration, and so faith wrought in them by the Spirit of God, without hearing the word, is not to be denied; since as they are capable of the principles of corruption, why not of grace? and also of such persons as have the right and free exercise of the faculties of hearing and speaking, and not of such who never could hear, and speak; for as the Spirit works where, and how he pleases, sohe can work faith in the hearts of such persons who never heard the word, and enable them to exercise it on the proper object, and cause them secretly to call upon the name of the Lord, with groans which cannot be uttered. Moreover, this is to be, understood of the ordinary way and means of believing; for though God can, and sometimes does work by other means, and even without any, yet his usual way and method is, to bring men to faith and repentance by the hearing of the word..." (Commentary on Rom. 10: 14)"
Garrett stated in reference to the above quote:
"Notice that Gill, even in the regeneration of infants, does not exclude faith in Christ and repentance! Agreed, he believes they hear the gospel, but not from human agents. I can accept that view. It is the view of the London Confession. But, the point is, that in either case, the old Baptists did not say that one could be regenerated without faith and repentance being present. He also even has the infant calling upon the name of the Lord!"
First, I want to point out that Gill is guilty of an obvious contradiction between this passage and the passage I have quoted in which Gill plainly denies that infants can exercise gospel faith, if Garrett is right about this passage. It seems likely, therefore, if we give any benefit of the doubt to Gill's intellect and scholarship, that Garrett is misinterpreting Gill here, as Garrett has admitted that Gill affirmed infants do not exercise gospel faith in the passage I have quoted.
Garrett claims that Gill claimed that infants could be made to hear the word directly from God. Infants, Gill argues, are capable of the principle of corruption and the principle of grace, which betokens a non-cognitive being in either state, not of cognitive acts of sin and cognitive acts of grace. Without cognitive ability, how is the faith's object of knowledge in these infants understood? Garrett seems to believe Gill is implicitly committed to viewing the infants as imbued with cognitive ability. If this were true, would not this cognitive ability necessarily be permanent, as their faith would depend on it? It is entirely problematic, accordingly, why some infants, at least, once they mature to speaking age, are not and were not proclaiming the name of Christ in heathen lands. Notice Gill states "the proper object" of faith, why does Gill not state Jesus Christ specifically, if God is simply teaching the gospel directly?
In any case, I deny that Gill is affirming that kind of absurdity. Gill is not dealing with infants any longer in this passage when he states, "and enable them to exercise it on the proper object, and cause them secretly to call upon the name of the Lord, with groans which cannot be uttered", for Gill moved from referring to infants to those, "also of such persons as have the right and free exercise of the faculties of hearing and speaking, and not of such who never could hear, and speak;". This group of people are adults outside of special revelation to which Romans 10:14 is referring and to which Gill addresses, "so he can work faith in the hearts of such persons who never heard the word, and enable them to exercise it on the proper object, and cause them secretly to call upon the name of the Lord, with groans which cannot be uttered." Notice the reference of 'such persons' back to the 'such persons' that have the right and free exercise of the faculties of hearing and speaking, and back to the adult persons of the first line of his commentary.
Now, certainly, Gill believed that Romans 10:14 indicates that it is God's normal way to incite faith among unbelievers by the preaching of the gospel by man, but Gill allowed that God can and does regenerate men directly by his Spirit, apart from the word, imparting the seed of faith of 1 John 3:9 in both infants and men outside of special revelation. It is obvious that if Gill intended "apart from the word", as he states, Gill could not mean that God may deliver the word directly, as that is not regeneration apart from the word.
I think this should suffice, as this post is already quite long.
Garrett stated:
"If I am at times unclear about what Jason argues, it is because his arguments at times are not well constructed or stated."
Perhaps Garrett's passion to oppose "Hardshellism" in conclusion prevents sincere and unbiased appraisal of any chain of reasoning but what is clearly in support of his presupposition.
Garrett stated:
"I gave good reasons for going with the first interpretation given by Gill, reasons that Jason failed to respond to. Further, in the citation, Gill denied that any who reject Christ would be saved. Jason ignored that part of the citation! Why? Because it shows he is no old Baptist and disagrees with Dr. Gill."
It is true that I did not address that part of Garret's writing. Not addressing his comments in that regard, however, is not a basis for the legitimacy of those comments. His comments were irrelevant because the real point was that Gill established two views of the text neither of which did he give preeminence over the other. It is unreasonable and beyond fact to affirm, as Garrett does, that Gill favored one view over the other when he did not state that he did. His argument here is pretentious in that manner, just like his rejection of Gill's teaching a "pre-faith" regeneration. If someone brings a viewpoint to the table that they defend from Scripture and do not clearly controvert, one cannot reasonably deny they advocated it (Gill argues strict regeneration is taught in 1 John 3:9 as a direct reference and argues that 2 Timothy 2:13 defends the idea of unbelief in the saints as in Peter).
Besides, Gill used 2 Timothy 2:13, interpreted as I interpret it, to support his view of Eternal Justification! If we wanted to ascertain the inclination of Gill on this passage, would we not observe the manner in which he applied the text?
Gill:
"...a man is as much justified before as after it, in the account of God; and after he does believe, his justification does not depend on his acts of faith; for though "we believe not, yet he abides faithful"; that is, God is faithful to his covenant engagements with his Son, as their Surety, by whose suretyship-righteousness they are justified..."
Garrett stated:
"I never depicted Gill's commentary on 2 Tim. 2: 13 as "one-sided." That is not correct for I cited enough of the passage where Gill gave the alternate interpretation of the passage. But, I believe the passage refers to unsaved people, and that the statement about God being "faithful" is, as Gill allowed, meant "faithful to his threatenings." Yet, Gill did say that it may have reference to children of God who "believe not," or who lack sufficient faith, and I agree that God's people often lack sufficient faith, or are guilty of some measure of unbelief, and must say "I believe, help my unbelief." That is not the issue. It is a straw man. I don't believe that this verse teaches this, not that it is not taught elsewhere. "
Very well, then. Garrett freely admits that the principle of my interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:13 is taught in Scripture. It is immaterial to our overall debate whether or not we agree that this particular passage is teaching it. He claimed two paragraph's later from the above quoted:
"It is a teaching of scripture, that if believers, like Peter, deny Christ in a moment of weakness, that Christ will nevertheless not deny them. It is true that "if we believe not, yet" he will abide "faithful" to his covenant promise, or "if we are not faithful to him, yet he is faithful to us." But, I do not believe that this is what Paul is saying in II Tim. 2: 13. I gave good reasons for my view, one that better fits the context and syntax of the passage."
How does this unbelief in gospel truth at this point relate to the faith and belief that they must on some level possess per actual regeneration? In other words, what is the basis in this moment of unbelief upon which the security of eternal life rests, if faith can be "unexercised" in this manner? Garrett obviously does not believe that the regenerate, at this point of unbelief, are devoid of any faith or trust, for this would deny the work of regeneration. What is the nature of the faith that is a fruit of the spirit at the moment of this unbelief? Is it a dead faith (unregenerate) in this moment of unbelief because in this moment it has no works? What knowledge is the object of this "unexercised" faith in the moment of unbelief?
Whatever basis upon which Peter is secure in Christ in Peter's unbelief, whatever faith that Peter does have in this moment of unbelief is the measure of security and faith absolutely necessary to eternal life. Not that anyone has the logical liberty of applying this one moment as characteristic of children of God under the influence of the revealed gospel, but, as a matter of strict logic, the lowest common denominator must be reconciled. Peter's unbelief demonstrates, not that it is characteristic of the regenerate to not exercise faith, but what logically constitutes the barest essence of faith in God.
Incidentally, does Garrett believe Paul thinks Peter is damned for not obeying the gospel here, as I've asked Garrett before? Garrett is adamant that Paul makes the categorical assertion that all of those that do not obey shall be damned in 2 Thess. 1:7-9. Garrett would not allow that Paul means in relation to what is characteristic of one's overall life. So it logically follows without possibility of the contrary that Peter was eternally damned.
Peter's unbelief in the context of Matt. 16:22 was not simply a lack of trust in Jesus, it was a lack of correct knowledge of the gospel. He did not see the necessity of Christ's death - that's a core aspect of the gospel. What, then, was the object of Peter's faith at this time? Was it the parts of the gospel he did understand? If that's so, why does Garrett deny that some of the Gnostic professed believers may have been born again, seeing as they denied orthodoxy in regard to the resurrection, but still claimed Jesus Christ for salvation? Could they not, like Peter, be born again in affirming Christ as the son of God, but not see the logical incompatibility of the latter with the former, just as Peter?
Garrett stated:
"But, the main question keeps getting brushed aside! Does the bible, or Dr. Gill, teach that one can be an unbeliever and yet saved? Where has Jason ever proven this? Where has he shown that such a doctrine is taught in II Timothy 2? Further, Gill affirmed that faith was not necessary for the salvation of those who die in infancy. I disagree with him on this, although elsewhere in Gill's writings he did affirm that infants could possess faith and knowledge."
Garrett is assuming by his use of "unbeliever" in the first sentence a definition of "unbeliever" that entails, in one's life, pervasive unbelief. He already concedes that believers are capable of unbelief, which has always been my point. He dismisses my point as a straw man against his position, but I hope I have indicated in this post the logical problems with his position that arise once you admit any disbelief in children of God. I fully agree and have always agreed with him that a pervasive unbelief of revelation in regenerates under the sound of the gospel is not taught in the New Testament.
I can only assume from Garrett's insertion about Gill's view of infants above, that Garrett basically agrees with me that Gill's doctrine of Eternal Justification seems to have problems in consistency with Gill's view of regeneration and effectual calling.
But, it's worse than just infants. Gill referred to infants, not as an isolated case, but as a case that lends general support that faith is not a 'causa sine qua non'. Gill made application of faith not being a 'causa sine qua non' in his writing beyond the case of infants. Note the way he states:
""If faith is the instrument of our justification, it is the instrument either of God or man; not of man, for justification is God's act; he is the sole Justifier, #Ro 3:26 man doth not justify himself: nor of God, for it is not God that believes": nor is it a "causa sine qua non", as the case of elect infants shows;"
Plainly Gill uses infants, presuming their being without gospel faith, to prove the rule that personal faith has no direct, causal bearing on eternal justification, election, or eternal salvation. He then applies this to children of God that do not depend upon the exercising of faith for eternal justification, though they depend on it for the subjective knowledge of their justification:
"a man is as much justified before as after it, in the account of God; and after he does believe, his justification does not depend on his acts of faith; for though "we believe not, yet he abides faithful""
Logically, it seems, if Gill admits here that infants are eternally saved without gospel faith, it makes it arbitrary why he would not allow for this on a more general scale, as mental competent adults are a far minority to the countless millions that have died in infancy.
I would argue, therefore, that Gill's doctrine of Eternal Justification is more consistent systematically with a view of regeneration and effectual calling that is consistent with what Gill thought elect infants proved: eternal life by a faith more rudimentary than gospel faith.
In the Primitive Baptist view of regeneration and effectual calling, the case of elect infants is easily understood as an implantation of a seed of faith directly by the Spirit of God. This view is more germane to what Gill here admits that elect infants prove than is Gill's own view of regeneration in regard to adults because it makes sense of Romans 4:16.
Next, I want to examine Garrett's quotation of Gill where Garrett argues that Gill did not exclude faith in Christ in infants:
""This is to be understood of outward hearing of the word, and of adult persons only; for that, infants may have the grace of regeneration, and so faith wrought in them by the Spirit of God, without hearing the word, is not to be denied; since as they are capable of the principles of corruption, why not of grace? and also of such persons as have the right and free exercise of the faculties of hearing and speaking, and not of such who never could hear, and speak; for as the Spirit works where, and how he pleases, sohe can work faith in the hearts of such persons who never heard the word, and enable them to exercise it on the proper object, and cause them secretly to call upon the name of the Lord, with groans which cannot be uttered. Moreover, this is to be, understood of the ordinary way and means of believing; for though God can, and sometimes does work by other means, and even without any, yet his usual way and method is, to bring men to faith and repentance by the hearing of the word..." (Commentary on Rom. 10: 14)"
Garrett stated in reference to the above quote:
"Notice that Gill, even in the regeneration of infants, does not exclude faith in Christ and repentance! Agreed, he believes they hear the gospel, but not from human agents. I can accept that view. It is the view of the London Confession. But, the point is, that in either case, the old Baptists did not say that one could be regenerated without faith and repentance being present. He also even has the infant calling upon the name of the Lord!"
First, I want to point out that Gill is guilty of an obvious contradiction between this passage and the passage I have quoted in which Gill plainly denies that infants can exercise gospel faith, if Garrett is right about this passage. It seems likely, therefore, if we give any benefit of the doubt to Gill's intellect and scholarship, that Garrett is misinterpreting Gill here, as Garrett has admitted that Gill affirmed infants do not exercise gospel faith in the passage I have quoted.
Garrett claims that Gill claimed that infants could be made to hear the word directly from God. Infants, Gill argues, are capable of the principle of corruption and the principle of grace, which betokens a non-cognitive being in either state, not of cognitive acts of sin and cognitive acts of grace. Without cognitive ability, how is the faith's object of knowledge in these infants understood? Garrett seems to believe Gill is implicitly committed to viewing the infants as imbued with cognitive ability. If this were true, would not this cognitive ability necessarily be permanent, as their faith would depend on it? It is entirely problematic, accordingly, why some infants, at least, once they mature to speaking age, are not and were not proclaiming the name of Christ in heathen lands. Notice Gill states "the proper object" of faith, why does Gill not state Jesus Christ specifically, if God is simply teaching the gospel directly?
In any case, I deny that Gill is affirming that kind of absurdity. Gill is not dealing with infants any longer in this passage when he states, "and enable them to exercise it on the proper object, and cause them secretly to call upon the name of the Lord, with groans which cannot be uttered", for Gill moved from referring to infants to those, "also of such persons as have the right and free exercise of the faculties of hearing and speaking, and not of such who never could hear, and speak;". This group of people are adults outside of special revelation to which Romans 10:14 is referring and to which Gill addresses, "so he can work faith in the hearts of such persons who never heard the word, and enable them to exercise it on the proper object, and cause them secretly to call upon the name of the Lord, with groans which cannot be uttered." Notice the reference of 'such persons' back to the 'such persons' that have the right and free exercise of the faculties of hearing and speaking, and back to the adult persons of the first line of his commentary.
Now, certainly, Gill believed that Romans 10:14 indicates that it is God's normal way to incite faith among unbelievers by the preaching of the gospel by man, but Gill allowed that God can and does regenerate men directly by his Spirit, apart from the word, imparting the seed of faith of 1 John 3:9 in both infants and men outside of special revelation. It is obvious that if Gill intended "apart from the word", as he states, Gill could not mean that God may deliver the word directly, as that is not regeneration apart from the word.
I think this should suffice, as this post is already quite long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)