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.
No comments:
Post a Comment