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.
No comments:
Post a Comment