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.
No comments:
Post a Comment