Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/12/time-salvation-its-modest-defense.html
Kevin Fralick Stated:
"I have noticed in my perusals of some of the so-called defenses of time salvation the consistent failure of its proponents to give a definition which captures the essence of its teaching. In most every attempt that I have ever read, the author always gives it a very modest definition. Instead of defining what it truly is and what it teaches in its extreme form, our modernists often skirt the issue by stating that it has to do with the "blessings in this life" or that God often rescues His people from temporary dangers, all the while neglecting to address the real issues which are at stake. Some of those issues include:
What is the purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
What is the correct interpretation, using sound hermeneutics, of those Biblical passages which connect the reception of the gospel with salvation (e.g. Romans 1:16; Romans 10; James 1:18)?
Is faith in Christ necessary for salvation?
Do the scriptures teach that conversion and sanctification are definite elements of eternal salvation?
It is not at all obvious to the reader that these are the real issues under consideration based on the superficial definitions of time salvation often presented. Notice in the citations we inscribe below the omission of weightier theological subjects such as regeneration, faith, conversion, justification, sanctification, or perseverance, which is actually what the doctrine actually compromises."
It is quite evident that Fralick believes that Conditional, Time Salvation (CTS henceforth), taken to it's logical conclusion, leads to universalism, as he accuses the doctrine of compromising the ordo salutis.
I point out, first, that universalism would only compromise much of the prescriptive nature of Fralick's conception of the ordo salutis. Universalism would not compromise all forms of these doctrines, only Fralick's conception of them would be sacrificed. In this, we observe that Fralick equates the compromise of these doctrines with the compromise of his conception of these doctrines, and he does not provide vindication of his views of these subjects. Why make an empty accusation where he is unwilling to be more precise? If he is preaching to the choir of Stephen Garrett, Bob Ross, and others of like mind, I'm sure such an accusation would be heartily endorsed. Notice the sweeping nature of the claim he makes that is beyond the scope of his present article, but in a polemical context, he simply begs the question.
Next, Brother Fralick argues as his thesis for this post that defenses of CTS from Primitive Baptists seem to omit what he takes to be the central heresy of CTS - universalism or a quasi-universalism. He argues that CTS is not a distinctive doctrine where it does not lead to these excesses. However, simply because CTS is used by some modern Primitive Baptists to justify universalism or a quasi-universalism does not demonstrate that it logically follows from CTS.
This is even inadvertently suggested by Fralick in this post, as he cannot easily find defenses of CTS that show what he takes to be the error of CTS. Fralick has not proved that the doctrinal flaw of CTS in many modern PB's actually follows from an emphasis of CTS, but presumes that it does. More than this, he even admits in contradiction to this presumption that no one denies that gospel obedience leads to temporal blessings, and all of Christendom is not guilty of a quasi-universalism. So it plainly follows from this that an understanding of temporal deliverances does not lead to the error he perceives in modern PB's. He effectively proves that CTS is not responsible for the errors of modern PB's that he perceives.
As for his claim that CTS is superfluous as an emphasis, this doctrine really came to the fore in Primitive Baptists in opposition to Absolute Predestination advocates who emphasized the unconditional nature of God's decrees over against man's responsibility for sin. The emphasis was really first about sin's relationship in the decrees of God. It is not a superfluous doctrine to place the emphasis of disobedience in man on man rather than the decree of God, as no man knows what God has decreed, and the Biblical emphasis per James 1:13, 14 is on man's responsibility, not God's decree. The converse, of course, logically follows as well. In obedience, man is equally responsible to make his calling and election sure. The calling and election are of God, but man does not know that he is called and elected unless he is obedient. There is a salvation from doubt if man perseveres, and men trust when they persevere that they are preserved in Christ.
CTS is not superfluous. It has epistemic significance. It certainly is not the case that all regenerate, children of God have the same measure of assurance in the faith. There is a confidence of faith that children of God must press toward, and this confidence is conditional on gospel obedience. The lack of obedience certainly could mean they are unregenerate, but it also may mean they are disobedient, as children of God are not always as obedient as they should be.
Admitting that children of God are often disobedient does not logically force the belief that children of God are always disobedient, or that the degree of disobedience is typically so great that they are indistinguishable from the unregenerate. This is hollow log error that all Primitive Baptists would deny, though in practice of doctrine, some modern Primitive Baptists fall back into this error.
Primitive Baptists who make an absolute distinction between sonship and discipleship are courting this error. Though there is truth in the distinction, some arbitrarily make the category of sons most of the people of the world. There is nothing about CTS that lends itself to a high population of Christ-rejecting sons, disproportionate to the population of disciples. There is nothing about this doctrine that makes only Primitive Baptists some measure of a disciple. There is nothing about this doctrine that should give comfort to those in disobedience because the logical possibility always exists that disobedience is an effect of an unregenerate state.
CTS does not depend, or it is not an effect of the objectionable, unquestioned commitment of some Primitive Baptists to view most of the world as comprised of regenerate sons. Now, it is abused by those with such commitments, but as Fralick himself notes, J.W. Jones' view of CTS in 1924 has none of these excessive views.
Now, the degree to which I will admit that some modern PB's emphasize CTS "unnecessarily" is where they are emphasizing CTS to justify their universalism or quasi-universalism, but it is more than simply "unnecessary" when it is used thusly, it is erroneous to apply it in this manner because it controverts the NT in which the calling of God is manifested by discipleship in 1 Cor. 1:24. But this is not a problem of CTS inherently.
Just as some measure of discipleship is the natural consequence of sonship when sons are under the sound of the gospel, CTS has a close connection with eternal salvation. This follows logically from the NT in that calling and election cannot be sure per Phil. 2:13 outside of gospel obedience. It is obvious to all that CTS presumes eternal salvation, but it is plain from the testimony of the NT that in this gospel era eternal salvation presumes some measure of CTS. True relationship presumes fellowship per 1 John 3:9,10.
If children of God are truly conformed to the image of Christ in time, how is it all consistent to believe they can completely reject the revelation of Him to whom they are made conformable? This doesn't make good nonsense, to quote Sonny Pyles.
Most of Fralick's objections to CTS seem to be against those who abuse it to justify preconceptions of universalism, but he doesn't appear to lay blame where it belongs. It is the universalism at fault, not the concept of CTS, as noted above, he has difficulty himself finding a defense of CTS to which he objects. Fralick has elsewhere claimed that one of the reasons he left the Primitive Baptists was because of the lack of any systematic presentation of CTS.
Fralick wondered whether CTS was one salvation or separate salvations of confession, baptism, etc. I'm not sure of the logical difficulty here. "Timely" salvation is a general term that refers to all the deliverances experienced in time by gospel obedience. It is certainly reasonable to ascribe a deliverance from doubt in making sure of one's calling and election. There is a deliverance in time from doubt when one is baptized, as it is the answer of a good conscience. There is a deliverance from doubt in confession, as Paul says that he that confesses that Jesus is Lord shall be saved. What is the deliverance? The deliverance should be from the guilt of sin and fear of the righteous judgment of God.
Now, some modern Primitive Baptists flesh out fear of God's judgment only in a temporal sense, and surely God can punish that way, but it is a mistake and unnecessary to limit the epistemic deliverance in this manner. Children of God that are first aware of sin have a pervading sense of guilt. Guilt of sin is alleviated in Christ; the child of God should feel, when they are first aware of their sin, justly deserving of the eternal damnation of God. So, there is a deliverance from the fear of God's just eternal wrath through belief in Jesus. Their security in Christ, in reality, is no less secure for what they feel or know, if they are truly of the elect, but there is no epistemic access to this security but by faith in Jesus.
CTS ought to be emphasized as a goad to apathetic, fence-straddling individuals. It ought to be balanced and compelled by the logical possibility that those who fail to submit to Christ's path may never have tasted that the Lord is gracious. Not everyone that says to Christ, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21). This Kingdom of Heaven is not simply the spiritual kingdom Christ instituted on earth, as Matt. 7:22 extends to the final eternal heaven in the reference to "that day".
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Garrett's Misrepresentation of Jonathan Edwards
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/12/chpt-110-mediate-or-immediate.html
In both the linked post above and on the "Baptist Gadfly", Garrett has argued that Edwards viewed regeneration and conversion as synonymous terms.
Certainly the quotations of Edwards that Garrett offers show that Edwards linked the two inseparably, and used them as approximately synonymous. However, Garrett has misrepresented Edwards to argue that he made no distinction between them. Garrett even quotes a crucial passage from Edwards and neglects to give the entire quote, which shows not only that Edwards did not view the terms as completely synonymous but that Edwards viewed the mind as passive in regeneration. There is no doubt from the passivity of the mind in regeneration that Edwards logically (like James White, for example) placed regeneration preceding faith.
Garrett quotes Edwards:
"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that byregeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.'"
However, Garrett omits the next two sentences that show that Edwards distinguished regeneration from conversion:
"I put repentance and conversion together, as the Scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19, and because they plainly signify much the same thing. The word metanoia (repentance) signifies a change of the mind; as the word conversion means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration (excepting that this latter term especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it), the following things do show…."
Not only are they distinct in magnitude, as regeneration is represented by Edwards here as especially indicative of change, but they are distinct in that while conversion involves the intellect, regeneration does not - man is wholly passive in it! How could Garrett miss that? This misrepresentation should make a person wonder how many of Garrett's quotes and historical representations have been pulled out of context on the pretext of support for his views.
Garrett would do well to research Edwards through the works of such scholars as John H. Gerstner. I recommend Gerstner's article here: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/regeneration/regeneration-from-jonathan-edwards-a-mini-theology-by-john-h-gerstner/
Gerstner was a very highly regarded Edwardsean scholastic authority, and his published works testify against Garrett's claim that Edwards made no distinction between regeneration and conversion or that regeneration does not logically precede faith and repentance.
In both the linked post above and on the "Baptist Gadfly", Garrett has argued that Edwards viewed regeneration and conversion as synonymous terms.
Certainly the quotations of Edwards that Garrett offers show that Edwards linked the two inseparably, and used them as approximately synonymous. However, Garrett has misrepresented Edwards to argue that he made no distinction between them. Garrett even quotes a crucial passage from Edwards and neglects to give the entire quote, which shows not only that Edwards did not view the terms as completely synonymous but that Edwards viewed the mind as passive in regeneration. There is no doubt from the passivity of the mind in regeneration that Edwards logically (like James White, for example) placed regeneration preceding faith.
Garrett quotes Edwards:
"If we compare one scripture with another, it will be sufficiently manifest that byregeneration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.'"
However, Garrett omits the next two sentences that show that Edwards distinguished regeneration from conversion:
"I put repentance and conversion together, as the Scripture puts them together, Acts iii. 19, and because they plainly signify much the same thing. The word metanoia (repentance) signifies a change of the mind; as the word conversion means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration (excepting that this latter term especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it), the following things do show…."
Not only are they distinct in magnitude, as regeneration is represented by Edwards here as especially indicative of change, but they are distinct in that while conversion involves the intellect, regeneration does not - man is wholly passive in it! How could Garrett miss that? This misrepresentation should make a person wonder how many of Garrett's quotes and historical representations have been pulled out of context on the pretext of support for his views.
Garrett would do well to research Edwards through the works of such scholars as John H. Gerstner. I recommend Gerstner's article here: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/regeneration/regeneration-from-jonathan-edwards-a-mini-theology-by-john-h-gerstner/
Gerstner was a very highly regarded Edwardsean scholastic authority, and his published works testify against Garrett's claim that Edwards made no distinction between regeneration and conversion or that regeneration does not logically precede faith and repentance.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Garrett and Fuller
Garrett's original post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/12/chpt-110-mediate-or-immediate.html
Stephen Garrett's latest post is, evidently, chapter 110 of his ongoing work against Primitive Baptists. I applaud some of the recent chapters of his work in that the presentation of the recent chapters have been, for the most part, far more logical and rational than some of the emotion-laden previous chapters. I would encourage him to continue in this style, and to re-write some of the previous chapters, as no matter what a person may believe, sensing an author's intense, personal feelings about a subject is a distraction to what should be a logical analysis that attempts to establish a rational basis for a thesis.
Too much of his writing bears the tone of abhorrence toward the Primitive Baptists that supplants what his rational objective is: to show the fallacy of Primitive Baptist doctrine. His name-calling, derogatory epithets, disparaging rhetoric, and sweeping generalizations will alienate readers from an honest appraisal of his arguments, even if they are not Primitive Baptists. His emotion alone alienates the logically-minded in a context in which reason and logic ought to be foremost.
Garrett stated:
""New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion." The idea that there was a clear distinction, and separation, between "regeneration" and "conversion," in scripture, was part of the "New Divinity" among Calvinists, and was not the teaching of the old divinity.It is a misrepresentation of the view of Edwards to say that he taught that regeneration preceded faith and conversion and that it was accomplished strictly in an immediate fashion, apart from the instrumentality of the gospel truth."
Garrett (and Bob Ross) has been promoting the idea that later Calvinists, for, apparently, paedo-Baptist ulterior motives, began to distinguish regeneration and conversion from the creedal, Calvinistic view of the synonymy of these terms. There does seem to have been an evolution from seeing them as approximately synonymous in earlier theologians to the terms being sharply distinguished in later theologians. However, to claim that this was done to support paedo-Baptist views seems highly speculative, and injurious to the integrity of a great many Calvinist theologians. It seems far more plausible to suggest that a sharper contrast between these terms came about as a result of a more consistent opposition to Arminian doctrine.
Obviously, if an ordo salutis that places faith simultaneous to regeneration is embraced, it lends prima facie credibility to the Arminian doctrine of resistible grace. Garrett's view of soteriology seems to be that grace is both resistible and irresistible. It is irresistible to the elect, but resistible to the non-elect. Titus 2:11, according to Garrett, indicates that God's grace that brings salvation actually does come to every single man that has ever lived. This also means that salvation is actually offered to the non-elect, if they would simply accept it and repent. Christ's atonement was, therefore, limited and universal - unlimited in scope, but limited in application. Basically he advocates Fullerism.
Notice how Garrett begins his post linked above:
"Regeneration is both Mediate and Immediate, just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional. To argue that regeneration cannot be both mediate and immediate is invalid, for regeneration is in fact both."
Garrett lets slip his Fuller commitments in, "...just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional."
What exactly is the immediate aspect of Garrett's view of regeneration? Garrett's view is that God's spirit regenerates men through the gospel. Immediate regeneration, by definition, is a regeneration that is executed by God's Spirit alone without mediation of any thing natural. If Garrett admits that this occurs, the presence of the gospel is an unmediated presence; if Garrett admits that God's regenerating Spirit is mediated through the Word, God regenerates by use of a medium. How can it logically be both at the same time and in the same relationship?
Garrett must be advocating what appears to be nonsense because he defines 'mediate' and 'immediate' in the generally understood usage of these terms. How can the act of regeneration be both? It is either through some means or it is not.
As for Garrett's comparison of regeneration to general salvation, which is supposedly conditional and unconditional, it shares the same contradiction - it either is ultimately conditional or it is not. Garrett seems to understand the distinction between first and secondary causes as the same as between the conditional and unconditional. This is a stretch, to say the least. This distinction in the London Confession is made in terms of God's unconditional decrees, as it explicitly states that God decreed nothing by foreknowledge. God employs secondary causation to achieve His ends as well as directly causing events, but it is all in an unconditional context of the counsel of His own will. It is a poor choice of words to say that eternal salvation is "conditional" in any sense, as the LCF's view of secondary causation certainly did not extend to the realm of contingency in salvation. He cannot defend Fuller in that document.
Stephen Garrett's latest post is, evidently, chapter 110 of his ongoing work against Primitive Baptists. I applaud some of the recent chapters of his work in that the presentation of the recent chapters have been, for the most part, far more logical and rational than some of the emotion-laden previous chapters. I would encourage him to continue in this style, and to re-write some of the previous chapters, as no matter what a person may believe, sensing an author's intense, personal feelings about a subject is a distraction to what should be a logical analysis that attempts to establish a rational basis for a thesis.
Too much of his writing bears the tone of abhorrence toward the Primitive Baptists that supplants what his rational objective is: to show the fallacy of Primitive Baptist doctrine. His name-calling, derogatory epithets, disparaging rhetoric, and sweeping generalizations will alienate readers from an honest appraisal of his arguments, even if they are not Primitive Baptists. His emotion alone alienates the logically-minded in a context in which reason and logic ought to be foremost.
Garrett stated:
""New Divinity distinction between regeneration and conversion." The idea that there was a clear distinction, and separation, between "regeneration" and "conversion," in scripture, was part of the "New Divinity" among Calvinists, and was not the teaching of the old divinity.It is a misrepresentation of the view of Edwards to say that he taught that regeneration preceded faith and conversion and that it was accomplished strictly in an immediate fashion, apart from the instrumentality of the gospel truth."
Garrett (and Bob Ross) has been promoting the idea that later Calvinists, for, apparently, paedo-Baptist ulterior motives, began to distinguish regeneration and conversion from the creedal, Calvinistic view of the synonymy of these terms. There does seem to have been an evolution from seeing them as approximately synonymous in earlier theologians to the terms being sharply distinguished in later theologians. However, to claim that this was done to support paedo-Baptist views seems highly speculative, and injurious to the integrity of a great many Calvinist theologians. It seems far more plausible to suggest that a sharper contrast between these terms came about as a result of a more consistent opposition to Arminian doctrine.
Obviously, if an ordo salutis that places faith simultaneous to regeneration is embraced, it lends prima facie credibility to the Arminian doctrine of resistible grace. Garrett's view of soteriology seems to be that grace is both resistible and irresistible. It is irresistible to the elect, but resistible to the non-elect. Titus 2:11, according to Garrett, indicates that God's grace that brings salvation actually does come to every single man that has ever lived. This also means that salvation is actually offered to the non-elect, if they would simply accept it and repent. Christ's atonement was, therefore, limited and universal - unlimited in scope, but limited in application. Basically he advocates Fullerism.
Notice how Garrett begins his post linked above:
"Regeneration is both Mediate and Immediate, just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional. To argue that regeneration cannot be both mediate and immediate is invalid, for regeneration is in fact both."
Garrett lets slip his Fuller commitments in, "...just like the whole of salvation is both conditional and unconditional."
What exactly is the immediate aspect of Garrett's view of regeneration? Garrett's view is that God's spirit regenerates men through the gospel. Immediate regeneration, by definition, is a regeneration that is executed by God's Spirit alone without mediation of any thing natural. If Garrett admits that this occurs, the presence of the gospel is an unmediated presence; if Garrett admits that God's regenerating Spirit is mediated through the Word, God regenerates by use of a medium. How can it logically be both at the same time and in the same relationship?
Garrett must be advocating what appears to be nonsense because he defines 'mediate' and 'immediate' in the generally understood usage of these terms. How can the act of regeneration be both? It is either through some means or it is not.
As for Garrett's comparison of regeneration to general salvation, which is supposedly conditional and unconditional, it shares the same contradiction - it either is ultimately conditional or it is not. Garrett seems to understand the distinction between first and secondary causes as the same as between the conditional and unconditional. This is a stretch, to say the least. This distinction in the London Confession is made in terms of God's unconditional decrees, as it explicitly states that God decreed nothing by foreknowledge. God employs secondary causation to achieve His ends as well as directly causing events, but it is all in an unconditional context of the counsel of His own will. It is a poor choice of words to say that eternal salvation is "conditional" in any sense, as the LCF's view of secondary causation certainly did not extend to the realm of contingency in salvation. He cannot defend Fuller in that document.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Garrett's Comments 11-10-11 Pt. 1
Brother Garrett's original post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/jasons-improvement.html
Brother Garrett claims that views of soteriology that I have espoused are not the majority report among Primitive Baptists. I have mentioned previously that David Pyles, a prominent Elder among the Old Baptists, has testified to me that this is not the case. Perhaps Brother Garrett's father, who is also an Elder among the PB's, represents more of a minority than Brother Garrett realizes.
Sometimes an abrasive approach incites controversy where the issues broached are not the real or only cause of division. Did Brother Garrett, while among the Primitive Baptists, approach these issues with humility and patience? Or was he as much as a firebrand then as he appears to be on his blog now? As a young Elder among the PB's in the early 80's, did Elder Stephen Garrett intreat the older Elders with the same respect he would his father, as the Scripture commands? I wonder how much of his difficulties were personality rather than doctrine. I appreciate and admire Brother Garrett's intellect and knowledge and I read his blog with interest even where we disagree. I am not arguing ad hominem against Brother Garrett's views here - I'm simply suggesting that Brother Garrett could have been more fruitful with patience. It takes wine time to ferment.
I must admit that I am somewhat critical of Sarrels. Brother Garrett quoted at length from Sarrels' systematic work. It is speculative to suppose that there are multitudes of regenerate, mentally competent adults among pagan nations, as even if the elect are out of every nation, kindred, and tongue that have ever existed, one regenerate person would satisfy that requirement, though the expression itself seems to be in the spirit of a grand scale. The grandiose nature of the expression is identified with the presence of all different nations, not that the number among the distinct nations would be large.
The unscriptural idea he supposes that regenerate individuals under the sound of the gospel would remain with only embryonic faith is illogical from the testimony of the New Testament. If the gospel is the power of God to the effectually called (1 Cor. 1:24), it is illogical to surmise that under this power, men would stagnate in embryonic faith. This is hollow log error. Primitive Baptists cannot logically affirm that regenerate men show evidences of regeneration, yet claim that they can completely reject the gospel.
I want to doubt Sarrels was trying to imply this. The point is that faith is an evidence of eternal life, not the objective cause of eternal life. Where Sarrels is confusing is arguing for this view on the illogical grounds of seeming "good" men being categorized as damned because they do not embrace the gospel. I have no patience for this type of argument. It's not scriptural and it's not rational. Does his view hinge in it's vindication on what is palatable to sentimental judgments of men? Did he not read Matt. 7:21?
Sarrels is an example of where some Primitive Baptists have gone to excess to differentiate themselves, but his views are hardly accepted in any formal or official capacity. He was just an individual Primitive Baptist Elder that put his pants on one leg at a time just like any other Primitive Baptist.
Garrett stated:
"What is given in regeneration enables one to "please God." This is professed by all Hardshells. But, if one cannot please God without faith, without believing in God, then faith must be what is produced in regeneration. Can Jason show us how the "faith" of Hebrews 11; 6 is devoid of knowledge about God? That it is non-cognitive? But, before I address these things at length, let me now cite the bad things Jason said in his most recent posting."
In the gospel era, the faith of those that are truly regenerate encompasses gospel faith. It is the nature of those truly regenerate to accept whatever measure of revelation that is available. Hebrews does not differentiate between exercised, gospel faith and a principle of grace given in regeneration because it is presumed that the audience has both.
Hebrews was written to an audience of Christians under tremendous pressure to submit to Judaism, and to cast off gospel faith in Jesus. Hebrews is a great book to enlighten those Primitive Baptists who want to argue that it is characteristic for regenerate children of God to reject the gospel. So, in short, I agree with Garrett here, but would add that the subject of faith in Hebrews has as it's context the revealed gospel. It does not imply that the fulness of the revelation available at the time it was written is a necessary condition for a legitimate claim of possession of saving faith (it's a necessary condition for those adults under the sound of the gospel of this book to claim), but implies consistency with Old Testament revelation which was far less than the gospel era. This would also be true of infants, the mentally incompetent, or any outside this revelation.
Garrett argues that the national Jew had an advantage over the Gentiles in the oracles of God being given to them. Paul does state that. I only argued that the Gentiles were under sin the same as the Jews, according to Romans 3:9, though they had no law. The Gentiles were no less damned than the Jews. Now, the Jews had an advantage of the knowledge of the oracles of God, but it is clear that this knowledge advantage was not a spiritual advantage because Paul states in Romans 3:9 that the oracles of God did not make the Jews any spiritually better than the Gentiles. In fact, according to Romans 2, it made the Jews worse than the Gentiles in many ways because the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through the Jews because of their hypocrisy (Romans 2:24).
Is Garrett suggesting that the unregenerate ethnic Jews had an advantage for eternal salvation over the unregenerate Gentiles by the giving of the law alone, and that the Gentiles had a disadvantage to be eternally saved on that basis? While the oracles of God SHOULD have advantaged the Jews in preparation of Christ (Gal. 3:21-24), it is plain from 1 Cor. 1:23 and 2 Cor. 4 that their understanding of the oracles of God was more of a hindrance than a help.
More than this, though the law is holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12), it was given to show sin that it might appear exceeding sinful (7:13). The Jews were "shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed" (Gal. 3:23) under the law. Because of original sin, the spiritual nature of the law is lost on the carnal man, sold unto sin (Romans 7:14). Man, in his natural state, is no more spiritually advantaged by the law than he would be without it. Now, man has more knowledge, i.e. he knows he is a transgressor, but that's a source of concupiscent excitement to many reprobates, not contrition.
The advantage of the Jews only became a spiritual advantage when the oracles of God are embraced in faith, as Paul implies in Romans 3:3. The majority of the ethnic Jews did not believe, though they had the oracles of God, and faith in God that those oracles should lead one to is not made without effect because the Jews, who one would think would be the first to believe (given their knowledge), refused to believe. Death in trespasses and sins makes knowledge of the oracles of God moot until the spirit of God moves upon the face of the deep of the natural man.
Garrett stated:
"Jason believes that Paul's statement that "calling upon the name of the Lord" will bring salvation is a "magic word recital." Is confession that Jesus is Lord a "magic word recital"? Does Jason not denigrate confessing Christ with words? Are the words of the publican - "God be merciful to me a sinner" - also a "magic word recital"? "
The publican did not utter those words with the intention of gaining eternal salvation by the utterance. A true confession of faith is from the heart - from belief; it is not made with the intent to gain eternal life, it is made because a person believes (obviously). It is an evidence of their belief, not belief itself, and whoever truly believes will want to confess Jesus as Lord.
Enough for now. More anon.
Brother Garrett claims that views of soteriology that I have espoused are not the majority report among Primitive Baptists. I have mentioned previously that David Pyles, a prominent Elder among the Old Baptists, has testified to me that this is not the case. Perhaps Brother Garrett's father, who is also an Elder among the PB's, represents more of a minority than Brother Garrett realizes.
Sometimes an abrasive approach incites controversy where the issues broached are not the real or only cause of division. Did Brother Garrett, while among the Primitive Baptists, approach these issues with humility and patience? Or was he as much as a firebrand then as he appears to be on his blog now? As a young Elder among the PB's in the early 80's, did Elder Stephen Garrett intreat the older Elders with the same respect he would his father, as the Scripture commands? I wonder how much of his difficulties were personality rather than doctrine. I appreciate and admire Brother Garrett's intellect and knowledge and I read his blog with interest even where we disagree. I am not arguing ad hominem against Brother Garrett's views here - I'm simply suggesting that Brother Garrett could have been more fruitful with patience. It takes wine time to ferment.
I must admit that I am somewhat critical of Sarrels. Brother Garrett quoted at length from Sarrels' systematic work. It is speculative to suppose that there are multitudes of regenerate, mentally competent adults among pagan nations, as even if the elect are out of every nation, kindred, and tongue that have ever existed, one regenerate person would satisfy that requirement, though the expression itself seems to be in the spirit of a grand scale. The grandiose nature of the expression is identified with the presence of all different nations, not that the number among the distinct nations would be large.
The unscriptural idea he supposes that regenerate individuals under the sound of the gospel would remain with only embryonic faith is illogical from the testimony of the New Testament. If the gospel is the power of God to the effectually called (1 Cor. 1:24), it is illogical to surmise that under this power, men would stagnate in embryonic faith. This is hollow log error. Primitive Baptists cannot logically affirm that regenerate men show evidences of regeneration, yet claim that they can completely reject the gospel.
I want to doubt Sarrels was trying to imply this. The point is that faith is an evidence of eternal life, not the objective cause of eternal life. Where Sarrels is confusing is arguing for this view on the illogical grounds of seeming "good" men being categorized as damned because they do not embrace the gospel. I have no patience for this type of argument. It's not scriptural and it's not rational. Does his view hinge in it's vindication on what is palatable to sentimental judgments of men? Did he not read Matt. 7:21?
Sarrels is an example of where some Primitive Baptists have gone to excess to differentiate themselves, but his views are hardly accepted in any formal or official capacity. He was just an individual Primitive Baptist Elder that put his pants on one leg at a time just like any other Primitive Baptist.
Garrett stated:
"What is given in regeneration enables one to "please God." This is professed by all Hardshells. But, if one cannot please God without faith, without believing in God, then faith must be what is produced in regeneration. Can Jason show us how the "faith" of Hebrews 11; 6 is devoid of knowledge about God? That it is non-cognitive? But, before I address these things at length, let me now cite the bad things Jason said in his most recent posting."
In the gospel era, the faith of those that are truly regenerate encompasses gospel faith. It is the nature of those truly regenerate to accept whatever measure of revelation that is available. Hebrews does not differentiate between exercised, gospel faith and a principle of grace given in regeneration because it is presumed that the audience has both.
Hebrews was written to an audience of Christians under tremendous pressure to submit to Judaism, and to cast off gospel faith in Jesus. Hebrews is a great book to enlighten those Primitive Baptists who want to argue that it is characteristic for regenerate children of God to reject the gospel. So, in short, I agree with Garrett here, but would add that the subject of faith in Hebrews has as it's context the revealed gospel. It does not imply that the fulness of the revelation available at the time it was written is a necessary condition for a legitimate claim of possession of saving faith (it's a necessary condition for those adults under the sound of the gospel of this book to claim), but implies consistency with Old Testament revelation which was far less than the gospel era. This would also be true of infants, the mentally incompetent, or any outside this revelation.
Garrett argues that the national Jew had an advantage over the Gentiles in the oracles of God being given to them. Paul does state that. I only argued that the Gentiles were under sin the same as the Jews, according to Romans 3:9, though they had no law. The Gentiles were no less damned than the Jews. Now, the Jews had an advantage of the knowledge of the oracles of God, but it is clear that this knowledge advantage was not a spiritual advantage because Paul states in Romans 3:9 that the oracles of God did not make the Jews any spiritually better than the Gentiles. In fact, according to Romans 2, it made the Jews worse than the Gentiles in many ways because the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through the Jews because of their hypocrisy (Romans 2:24).
Is Garrett suggesting that the unregenerate ethnic Jews had an advantage for eternal salvation over the unregenerate Gentiles by the giving of the law alone, and that the Gentiles had a disadvantage to be eternally saved on that basis? While the oracles of God SHOULD have advantaged the Jews in preparation of Christ (Gal. 3:21-24), it is plain from 1 Cor. 1:23 and 2 Cor. 4 that their understanding of the oracles of God was more of a hindrance than a help.
More than this, though the law is holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12), it was given to show sin that it might appear exceeding sinful (7:13). The Jews were "shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed" (Gal. 3:23) under the law. Because of original sin, the spiritual nature of the law is lost on the carnal man, sold unto sin (Romans 7:14). Man, in his natural state, is no more spiritually advantaged by the law than he would be without it. Now, man has more knowledge, i.e. he knows he is a transgressor, but that's a source of concupiscent excitement to many reprobates, not contrition.
The advantage of the Jews only became a spiritual advantage when the oracles of God are embraced in faith, as Paul implies in Romans 3:3. The majority of the ethnic Jews did not believe, though they had the oracles of God, and faith in God that those oracles should lead one to is not made without effect because the Jews, who one would think would be the first to believe (given their knowledge), refused to believe. Death in trespasses and sins makes knowledge of the oracles of God moot until the spirit of God moves upon the face of the deep of the natural man.
Garrett stated:
"Jason believes that Paul's statement that "calling upon the name of the Lord" will bring salvation is a "magic word recital." Is confession that Jesus is Lord a "magic word recital"? Does Jason not denigrate confessing Christ with words? Are the words of the publican - "God be merciful to me a sinner" - also a "magic word recital"? "
The publican did not utter those words with the intention of gaining eternal salvation by the utterance. A true confession of faith is from the heart - from belief; it is not made with the intent to gain eternal life, it is made because a person believes (obviously). It is an evidence of their belief, not belief itself, and whoever truly believes will want to confess Jesus as Lord.
Enough for now. More anon.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Garrett on Holmes and Clark
Last Sunday, Garrett posted this: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/12/clark-holmes-on-predestination.html
It was in response to a post here: http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2011/12/clarke-and-holmes-on-decree-of-god.html
The above is a blog of R.L. Vaughn's, but the substance of his posting was a quote from Obadiah Holmes and John Clark. There are several things objectionable in Garrett's comments.
Garrett stated:
"John Clark and Obadiah Holmes were pastors of the first Baptist church in America. Notice that the first Baptists in America were not of the modern Hardshell type, for they say that "all things that come to pass in time" are the result of God's decree and determination. Yet, they also said that God was not the "cause" of "any sin." Surely by"cause" they meant the immediate or direct cause of sin, that he was not the culpable cause. They certainly could not be said to be rejecting the idea that God is no "cause" in any sense without contradicting themselves. God decrees and determines a thing but does not cause it in any sense? Doubtless the denial that God is the "cause" of sin simply meant that God is not the "author of sin," and doubtless Clark and Holmes believed that all things are predestined. They also differentiate between special and general predestination."
Garrett claims that Holmes and Clark were not of the "Hardshell type" because they said that all things come to pass in time as a result of God's decree and determination. This is erroneous. Are there some present Primitive Baptists that deny that sin and evil come to pass by God's determination? Yes there are some, but Garrett presumes that these represent the majority. Present Primitive Baptists have no formal creed that summarizes their doctrine. You have independent ministers that hold different views that can be broadly characterized, but to presume that there is an objective standard of Primitive Baptist doctrine is to misunderstand the autonomous, congregational nature of the Primitive Baptists.
Of course, PB's claim that only the Scripture is a doctrinal standard. However, interpretation renders even this standard somewhat subjective. Historical interpretation of the Scripture is an objective standard, and I agree with Garrett that some present Primitive Baptists are in disagreement with their forefathers on the idea that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass. However, no learned Primitive Baptist has ever denied this truth.
There is a lot of ignorance among Primitive Baptists that I will not deny. The learned Primitive Baptist objection to some adherents of Absolute Predestination is that they refute any difference between the permissive and fiat decree of God in relation to sin, making God the cause of sin the same way in which God is the cause of grace and holiness. It appears, however, that some Absolute Predestinarians reject this view as well, and to them there ought not to be a lack of fellowship. However, the objection is also made that predestination is defined in the Scripture as a specific decree of God, not a synonym for God's general decrees. I do not believe this semantic difference alone (of the previous sentence) should be a test of fellowship, but it could be argued that redefining God's providence as predestination is in the same spirit of dissolving God's permissive decree. Those that seem to insist on using predestination instead of providence also tend to insist that God wills nothing by "bare permission".
Both of these qualifications of supralapsarian Calvinism are present in the quotation of Clark and Holmes. The Fulton brethren would have been in complete agreement with this quotation. Some present PB's ignorantly claim that the men at Fulton, Kentucky were "absoluters" as well, but this is a silly claim. The cause of this is that some present PB's, feeling the weight of the supralapsarian argument that God decrees nothing by "bare permission", have abandoned the Biblical emphasis on God's permissive decree of sin, and instead chosen to claim that sin and evil happen outside the will of God. These brethren flirt with blasphemy, but do not appear to see the implications of this for God's omnipotence and omniscience.
It was in response to a post here: http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2011/12/clarke-and-holmes-on-decree-of-god.html
The above is a blog of R.L. Vaughn's, but the substance of his posting was a quote from Obadiah Holmes and John Clark. There are several things objectionable in Garrett's comments.
Garrett stated:
"John Clark and Obadiah Holmes were pastors of the first Baptist church in America. Notice that the first Baptists in America were not of the modern Hardshell type, for they say that "all things that come to pass in time" are the result of God's decree and determination. Yet, they also said that God was not the "cause" of "any sin." Surely by"cause" they meant the immediate or direct cause of sin, that he was not the culpable cause. They certainly could not be said to be rejecting the idea that God is no "cause" in any sense without contradicting themselves. God decrees and determines a thing but does not cause it in any sense? Doubtless the denial that God is the "cause" of sin simply meant that God is not the "author of sin," and doubtless Clark and Holmes believed that all things are predestined. They also differentiate between special and general predestination."
Garrett claims that Holmes and Clark were not of the "Hardshell type" because they said that all things come to pass in time as a result of God's decree and determination. This is erroneous. Are there some present Primitive Baptists that deny that sin and evil come to pass by God's determination? Yes there are some, but Garrett presumes that these represent the majority. Present Primitive Baptists have no formal creed that summarizes their doctrine. You have independent ministers that hold different views that can be broadly characterized, but to presume that there is an objective standard of Primitive Baptist doctrine is to misunderstand the autonomous, congregational nature of the Primitive Baptists.
Of course, PB's claim that only the Scripture is a doctrinal standard. However, interpretation renders even this standard somewhat subjective. Historical interpretation of the Scripture is an objective standard, and I agree with Garrett that some present Primitive Baptists are in disagreement with their forefathers on the idea that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass. However, no learned Primitive Baptist has ever denied this truth.
There is a lot of ignorance among Primitive Baptists that I will not deny. The learned Primitive Baptist objection to some adherents of Absolute Predestination is that they refute any difference between the permissive and fiat decree of God in relation to sin, making God the cause of sin the same way in which God is the cause of grace and holiness. It appears, however, that some Absolute Predestinarians reject this view as well, and to them there ought not to be a lack of fellowship. However, the objection is also made that predestination is defined in the Scripture as a specific decree of God, not a synonym for God's general decrees. I do not believe this semantic difference alone (of the previous sentence) should be a test of fellowship, but it could be argued that redefining God's providence as predestination is in the same spirit of dissolving God's permissive decree. Those that seem to insist on using predestination instead of providence also tend to insist that God wills nothing by "bare permission".
Both of these qualifications of supralapsarian Calvinism are present in the quotation of Clark and Holmes. The Fulton brethren would have been in complete agreement with this quotation. Some present PB's ignorantly claim that the men at Fulton, Kentucky were "absoluters" as well, but this is a silly claim. The cause of this is that some present PB's, feeling the weight of the supralapsarian argument that God decrees nothing by "bare permission", have abandoned the Biblical emphasis on God's permissive decree of sin, and instead chosen to claim that sin and evil happen outside the will of God. These brethren flirt with blasphemy, but do not appear to see the implications of this for God's omnipotence and omniscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)