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.
No comments:
Post a Comment