Kevin Fralick posted a blog two weeks ago (here) containing some quotations from F.A. Chick on conditional, "time" or temporal salvation.
First of all, I agree with Walter Cash and F.A. Chick that the name, "conditional, time salvation", as an expression, because of the constant need to explain and qualify what is intended by a phrase no where explicitly employed in the Scripture, is confusing. To those unfamiliar with Primitive Baptist parlance, the expression is in constant need of explanation. Nevertheless, the concept is biblical when rightly applied and when it is not carried to errant extremes to justify a quasi-universalism.
Secondly, F.A. Chick seems to presume that conditions imply a works system of rewards for obedience apart from grace. However, because of this, he seems to fail to account for the conditional chastisement of children of God when they are disobedient.
It seems undeniable that the Scripture presents sanctification and disobedience in conditional terms. This is easily proved by appeal to Ephesians 4:30 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19.
It is also equally undeniable that the Scripture presents obedience in the children of God as a work of grace in Philippians 2:12,13, 1 Peter 1:2, and 2 Peter 1:3.
What Chick seems to fail to consider is that God does not give sanctifying grace equally to His children. Plainly, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5). Now, children of God may either face temptation in haughtiness of mind, or humble themselves under the mighty hand of God that they might be exalted in due season (1 Peter 5:6). There are two attitudes that children of God can have toward times of temptation and trial: they can be proud in believing they stand (1 Corinthians 10:12), or they can be clothed in the humility of the knowledge of how they stand in Christ - in his imputed righteousness.
Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 9:27-10:11 is that the people of God can tempt Christ in terms of an antinomian attitude toward their redemption, as the carnal Corinthians, and be destroyed of God. The attitude of the Corinthians toward their fleshly lusts was cavalier, and with arrogance they asserted their security in Christ in the midst of reprobate works.
Comparing verses 9 and 13, a distinction is observed between two attitudes toward temptation. Verse 9 involves an attitude of participation and lasciviousness, and verse 13 involves an attitude of Joseph fleeing Potiphar's wife.
Temptation is used to rationalize sin by claiming that one will be saved by God despite sin. To tempt Christ, therefore, is to believe (when one is tempted) that they can freely sin because Christ has already atoned even for that sin.
To say, "I am tempted of God" (James 1:13), when one is tempted is to the same end of rationalizing sin, as the presumption is that God must be giving permission for sin by the occasion of temptation. But James asserts that temptation arises from the sinfulness of man.
Paul, too, asserts in 1 Cor. 10:9 that to tempt Christ is to attribute the legitimacy of acts of sin in the redemption of Christ, or to say, "...let us do evil that good may come, whose damnation is just (Romans 3:8)."
This is altogether different from Paul's emphasis in 1 Cor. 10:13, which is to the humble and unwilling participants of temptation. 1 Cor. 10:13 is to the humble that are tried by Satan, as Job, whom the children of God resist steadfastly in faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in brethren that are in the world (1 Peter 5:8,9).
Clearly, Samson exemplifies the point here. Samson was overcome and vanquished by his own haughtiness, as even with his hair cut in Judges 16:20, Samson proudly thought, "I will go out as at other times before, and shake myself." The Scripture then states, "And he wist not that the Lord was departed from him."
Nevertheless, after the Philistines put out his eyes and bound him with fetters of brass to grind in the prison house of Gaza, God was faithful in His promise, and I have always loved Judges 16:22, "Howbeit the hair of his head began to grow again after he was shaven." The righteous man falleth seven times, but rises again because greater is He that is in the regenerate than he that is in the world (1 John 4:4).
Monday, October 1, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Fralick on Calvinistic Pharisees
Brother Kevin Fralick wrote (here) on the Primitive Baptist accusation that Calvinism is legalism equal to the legalism of the Pharisees.
Brother Fralick quotes Elder Hulan Bass and Conrad Jarrell.
First, I want to concede to Brother Fralick that Calvinists affirm that gospel belief is a faith effected by the Spirit and is the gift of God. To the Calvinist, the will of man in exercising faith in regeneration is fully effected by the Spirit to do so irresistibly, so that it is not a work of man alone.
The accusation that this is legalism (legalism being the idea that eternal salvation is earned by works apart from grace) is false because it is God by the Spirit that effects the faith of man, not man alone. The accusation by Elders Jarrell and Bass seems to be that to admit that the faith effected by the Spirit is a faith exercised by man, though it is effected by God alone, is tantamount to a merited salvation apart from grace.
The Elders, themselves, however, cannot escape their own objection in regard to their own view of the effectual call. The effectual call, even to any Primitive Baptist, effects some kind of faith in the regenerate. This faith is some kind of volitional trust in God, on some necessary level (John 17:3), which is exercised in man whether it is sub-conscious or not, and would be as equally objectionable as a "work of man" by their own standard as faith in the gospel.
The salient objection to Calvinism is not whether faith is exercised in the regenerate, which, plainly, all Primitive Baptists must agree that faith is exercised immediately upon regeneration (however different the Primitive Baptist view of the faith exercised is), but the standard of faith knowledge or what is the object of faith in regeneration.
Where I believe the Elders considered are correct in their accusation of legalism in Calvinism is upon the emphasis and indefensible standard of the regenerate's works. If works were emphasized by Calvinists on the basis of their epistemic value of evidencing the eternal salvation decreed by God, there should be no problem. However, when an unbiblical standard of works is made the condition for eternal salvation, legalism is the result.
To speak of works as conditions for salvation rather than the evidences of salvation obscures that eternal salvation was unconditionally purposed by God. What was purposed by God cannot be conditional, save in a relative sense to the assurance of the believer. An absence of works removes epistemic warrant for belief that one was redeemed by Christ, it does not dictate the objective fact of whether they were redeemed or not, though it may evidence the objective fact that they are unregenerate.
Eternal salvation effects some degree of good works in those set apart by the Spirit of God, but the crucial emphasis must be on Christ as the author of all spiritual blessings. It is the universal tendency of man to flee to himself for trust; the Calvinist has the tendency to temper the accusations against him that he suggests that the unrighteousness of man commends the righteousness of God by giving place to a legalistic standard of a "true" state of grace beyond confession of Christ and love of the brethren.
When only those who maintain perfect and strict discipleship are true children of God, the Calvinist has imposed works on grace by imposing burdens grievous to be borne. The message of the gospel is, "Come unto me all ye that are heavy laden, and I shall give you rest." Many Calvinists relieve their burdens in Christ only to take them up again. Was this not Paul's view of Christian Jews who believed in Christ, but still lived under the yolk of the law? Paul even, for their sake, acted as a Jew under command of James to show the Christian Jews that Paul walked orderly according to the law (Acts 21:20-26).
Brother Fralick quotes Elder Hulan Bass and Conrad Jarrell.
First, I want to concede to Brother Fralick that Calvinists affirm that gospel belief is a faith effected by the Spirit and is the gift of God. To the Calvinist, the will of man in exercising faith in regeneration is fully effected by the Spirit to do so irresistibly, so that it is not a work of man alone.
The accusation that this is legalism (legalism being the idea that eternal salvation is earned by works apart from grace) is false because it is God by the Spirit that effects the faith of man, not man alone. The accusation by Elders Jarrell and Bass seems to be that to admit that the faith effected by the Spirit is a faith exercised by man, though it is effected by God alone, is tantamount to a merited salvation apart from grace.
The Elders, themselves, however, cannot escape their own objection in regard to their own view of the effectual call. The effectual call, even to any Primitive Baptist, effects some kind of faith in the regenerate. This faith is some kind of volitional trust in God, on some necessary level (John 17:3), which is exercised in man whether it is sub-conscious or not, and would be as equally objectionable as a "work of man" by their own standard as faith in the gospel.
The salient objection to Calvinism is not whether faith is exercised in the regenerate, which, plainly, all Primitive Baptists must agree that faith is exercised immediately upon regeneration (however different the Primitive Baptist view of the faith exercised is), but the standard of faith knowledge or what is the object of faith in regeneration.
Where I believe the Elders considered are correct in their accusation of legalism in Calvinism is upon the emphasis and indefensible standard of the regenerate's works. If works were emphasized by Calvinists on the basis of their epistemic value of evidencing the eternal salvation decreed by God, there should be no problem. However, when an unbiblical standard of works is made the condition for eternal salvation, legalism is the result.
To speak of works as conditions for salvation rather than the evidences of salvation obscures that eternal salvation was unconditionally purposed by God. What was purposed by God cannot be conditional, save in a relative sense to the assurance of the believer. An absence of works removes epistemic warrant for belief that one was redeemed by Christ, it does not dictate the objective fact of whether they were redeemed or not, though it may evidence the objective fact that they are unregenerate.
Eternal salvation effects some degree of good works in those set apart by the Spirit of God, but the crucial emphasis must be on Christ as the author of all spiritual blessings. It is the universal tendency of man to flee to himself for trust; the Calvinist has the tendency to temper the accusations against him that he suggests that the unrighteousness of man commends the righteousness of God by giving place to a legalistic standard of a "true" state of grace beyond confession of Christ and love of the brethren.
When only those who maintain perfect and strict discipleship are true children of God, the Calvinist has imposed works on grace by imposing burdens grievous to be borne. The message of the gospel is, "Come unto me all ye that are heavy laden, and I shall give you rest." Many Calvinists relieve their burdens in Christ only to take them up again. Was this not Paul's view of Christian Jews who believed in Christ, but still lived under the yolk of the law? Paul even, for their sake, acted as a Jew under command of James to show the Christian Jews that Paul walked orderly according to the law (Acts 21:20-26).
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Fralick on "Two Faith Caricature"
Brother Kevin Fralick wrote (here):
"The duplication of Christian virtues is the inevitable result of what happens when one follows a system which attempts to preserve God fulfilling his purpose concerning His elect in time, but will not allow Him to do so through gospel means. For each evangelical blessing that is to be conveyed to the children of God, a non-evangelical version must be created of which they are said to receive, where the former is left uncertain."
My point in opposing the representation of some modern Primitive Baptists as believing in "two faiths" or "two salvations" is not to claim that some modern PB's are fully correct or accurate in their views. I acknowledged in my last post that some PB's do indeed lend themselves to the criticism of Brother Fralick. My point is that there is an element of truth in their emphasis, but it is often, among some, poorly expressed, and that Brother Fralick does not really address the truth of a distinction between sonship and discipleship or between regeneration and conversion by an attack on the confused expressions of some Primitive Baptists over the last century.
To claim that it is false to distinguish sonship from discipleship or eternal salvation from the temporal manifestation of eternal salvation on the basis of specific writings of specific ministers among the PB's of the last century would only disprove the failings of the argumentation of those ministers. Kevin Fralick has not addressed my specific writing on these matters (though he makes a few snipes in this post), which, I think, establishes the truth of the emphases of much of modern PB's without falling into the error of antinomianism or a hollow-log view of regeneration.
It doesn't matter if he can poke holes and overthrow the silliest versions of soteriology of some modern PB's, it still does not disprove some degree of truth in their emphasis.
Brother Fralick wrote:
"If the terminology of “two faiths” is a caricature, it would stand to reason that the charge of "two kinds" of other virtues (listed above) are a caricature as well. What of "two salvations"? Is that a caricature? If evangelical faith is an extension of seed faith in regeneration, then is gospel conversion (i.e. time salvation) also an extension of regeneration? It would seem that way. For if evangelical faith is not really a separate faith from that received in regeneration, then the "two salvations" which are said to bring seed and evangelical faith, respectively, should be considered a single unit as well. Otherwise we are left with the strange conclusion that time salvation conveys and imparts a blessing which is actually part of the first salvation! Thus, the verbage of “two salvations” should henceforth be discarded. Starting today, it should be declared that there really are not two salvations taught in scripture. Rather, there is one salvation taught in the Bible, in which regeneration and the future gospel conversion are the components."
I agree with Elder Walter Cash in a post I made on the Sculptor's Hammer. God saves His people, whether it be in matters pertaining to their redemption in Jesus Christ or the extension of this redemption by a providential care of them in time. Certainly, it can hardly be denied that children of God can damage their fellowship with God through disobedience, and, consequently, fail to enjoy the blessings that are obtained through obedience. This truth is abused by some modern Primitive Baptists to give comfort to those who fully reject Jesus Christ and live lives given over to gross immorality, and to justify a judgment of the eternal security of the unrepentant. This hardly follows as a legitimate extension of the truth that God's children can be disobedient, but is imposed to justify a virtual universalism.
Though it is true that there is a difference between being saved and having the full assurance and knowledge of being saved, some modern Primitive Baptists extend this distinction unbiblically to the point that there is no effective temporal distinction between those set apart and the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. When "two salvations" or "two faiths" is applied to make regenerate people out of the reprobate among those that openly blaspheme and reject Jesus Christ, one can clearly perceive universalism gone to seed.
Brother Fralick stated:
"The main point, though, is that even if I were to go back and rewrite my posting, and change my verbage of "two faiths" to one faith with two aspects, the substance remains the same. Passages yoking faith with salvation must still be given an interpretation. So I express it differently. What is that stage or aspect of the ONE faith which unites us to Christ, as in Gal. 3:26? Is it:
1) faith below the consciousness through the preaching of Jesus?
2) cognitive faith through the preaching of Jesus?
3) cognitive faith through the preaching of men?
Or some other permutation? This is not a haphazard handling of a subject, but a legitimate question based on the various aspects of faith as defined by the very inventors of this regeneration-conversion divorcement."
The essential misunderstanding here is that faith through the gospel as preached by man must be distinct in substance from the faith wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God alone. They are the same, or fundamentally the same, save in the degree of intellectual knowledge about the gospel that may be given through the preaching of man. One cannot separate out the faith of Christ wrought immediately by the Spirit from the propositional truth of the gospel as preached by man to those effectually called under the sound of the gospel. I have said this in multiple posts. The faith in Christ, wrought by the Spirit alone, assents, at the very least inwardly, to gospel propositions to some degree; the faith effected by the Spirit is an immediate revelation of the person of Christ, the gospel propositions corroborate this revelation, which is a spiritual reality. The sufficient condition of Biblical faith is not propositions of language but a spiritual revelation of the person of Christ wherein true sons cry Abba, Father (Gal. 4:6).
Gal. 3:23-26 seems to be more fully explained by Galatians 4:1-9. Gal. 4:5 does not make receiving the adoption of sons contingent on a mere intellectual apprehension and assent to propositions, though this text is fully consistent with such apprehension in mentally competent adults under the sound of the man-preached gospel, but the adoption is effected in time by an intrusive, effectual work of God through the Spirit of Christ by which sons cry, 'Abba Father', in a spiritual, vital faith in the person of Christ. This root groaning that "cannot be uttered" under girds and is the basis of all true, evangelical faith in the gospel as preached by man. It need not be fully separated exegetically from the gospel as preached by man, especially in plain contexts of evangelical faith in the New Testament, but is fully associated so that no text in the N.T. that states the necessity of faith for salvation should be absent this fundamental sense of it. Galatians 4:6 explains the basic nature of faith in Christ of 3:26.
Brother Fralick stated:
"The scriptures annihilate the idea of a time gap between regeneration and conversion, and thus the position that says that one receives seed faith in regeneration, and then evangelical faith one week, one year, or twenty years later. It does so by specific proof texts in which evangelical faith as preached by MAN is included as part of the transition in which one goes from death in sins to life in Christ."
The scripture plainly indicates that a regenerate person can be united to Christ without a full, intellectual apprehension of gospel truth. A fair examination of Galatians 4:9-11 proves that it is possible that truly regenerate persons, known of God in the covenant of grace, can be in error in regard to how they are apprehended of in Christ Jesus, as Paul also concedes in Philippians 3.
Paul considers, in Galatians 4:11, that the Galatians are either false professors or truly regenerate persons in error. He does not assert the fact of either, but plainly states his fear of the former by the possibility of the latter; conversely, he states his concern of the latter by the possibility of the former.
The preclusion by brother Fralick that there are not degrees of conversion among the regenerate controverts what is evidently possible from this passage, and from much of Hebrews. Paul could not write the Hebrew audience if he thought it was a forgone conclusion that those in error were and are false professors. The exhortation of Paul to the visible, community of believers establishes that children of God can be in error from the gospel and in need of temporal deliverance, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh (Jude 23). Gospel conversion obviously admits of degrees in terms of the full stature of Christ, and the regenerate may either live stunted spiritual lives in the kingdom or enjoy fuller, spiritual blessings through obedience. As Sonny Pyles puts it, the elect will either grow in grace or groan in disgrace.
Specific texts which include evangelical faith as a part of the transition from spiritual death to life establish that Christ is the object of true faith. The fact that the Spirit effects faith in the person of Christ under the sound of the gospel, including some degree of assent to gospel propositions, does not establish that faith is created by the rational hearing of the audible gospel. When a man hears the audible gospel and faith is effected by the Spirit, the faith effected is not fundamentally in the gospel propositions but in the person of Christ, which is the content of the gospel. This is the crucial point. Christ is not known savingly through propositions of language, even if these propositions mediate the Spirit (the meaningful mediation to man would be after faith in Christ is immediately effected by the Spirit), but by direct and immediate revelation of God, as Gal. 4:6 depicts. It is the Spirit of Christ, sent from God, wherein true sons respond in faith, not first in gospel propositions, though that surely follows to some degree in those under the sound of the gospel.
As Vincent points out in his word studies, Romans 10:17 does not refer by 'and hearing by the word of God' to the notion of gospel instrumentality to hearing, but, as the oldest manuscripts known have 'rhematos Xristou', to the idea that it is from the commission of Christ to the Apostles to preach the gospel indicated by Romans 10:15. The 'hearing' is the same word as 'report' in 10:16, so that Paul is clearly referring to the authority of Christ's command in the Commission of the Apostles to preach to all nations. The hearing under consideration does not carry with it a meaning of the individual's hearing of faith, but that belief of the individual is the intended effect of the divine command of Christ for the Apostles to report the gospel to all nations.
This passage should be evaluated in context and by word study before it is recklessly applied, as Paul then argues in 10:18,19 that the Gentile world had been preached to the point of satisfaction of Christ's commission to Paul.
"The duplication of Christian virtues is the inevitable result of what happens when one follows a system which attempts to preserve God fulfilling his purpose concerning His elect in time, but will not allow Him to do so through gospel means. For each evangelical blessing that is to be conveyed to the children of God, a non-evangelical version must be created of which they are said to receive, where the former is left uncertain."
My point in opposing the representation of some modern Primitive Baptists as believing in "two faiths" or "two salvations" is not to claim that some modern PB's are fully correct or accurate in their views. I acknowledged in my last post that some PB's do indeed lend themselves to the criticism of Brother Fralick. My point is that there is an element of truth in their emphasis, but it is often, among some, poorly expressed, and that Brother Fralick does not really address the truth of a distinction between sonship and discipleship or between regeneration and conversion by an attack on the confused expressions of some Primitive Baptists over the last century.
To claim that it is false to distinguish sonship from discipleship or eternal salvation from the temporal manifestation of eternal salvation on the basis of specific writings of specific ministers among the PB's of the last century would only disprove the failings of the argumentation of those ministers. Kevin Fralick has not addressed my specific writing on these matters (though he makes a few snipes in this post), which, I think, establishes the truth of the emphases of much of modern PB's without falling into the error of antinomianism or a hollow-log view of regeneration.
It doesn't matter if he can poke holes and overthrow the silliest versions of soteriology of some modern PB's, it still does not disprove some degree of truth in their emphasis.
Brother Fralick wrote:
"If the terminology of “two faiths” is a caricature, it would stand to reason that the charge of "two kinds" of other virtues (listed above) are a caricature as well. What of "two salvations"? Is that a caricature? If evangelical faith is an extension of seed faith in regeneration, then is gospel conversion (i.e. time salvation) also an extension of regeneration? It would seem that way. For if evangelical faith is not really a separate faith from that received in regeneration, then the "two salvations" which are said to bring seed and evangelical faith, respectively, should be considered a single unit as well. Otherwise we are left with the strange conclusion that time salvation conveys and imparts a blessing which is actually part of the first salvation! Thus, the verbage of “two salvations” should henceforth be discarded. Starting today, it should be declared that there really are not two salvations taught in scripture. Rather, there is one salvation taught in the Bible, in which regeneration and the future gospel conversion are the components."
I agree with Elder Walter Cash in a post I made on the Sculptor's Hammer. God saves His people, whether it be in matters pertaining to their redemption in Jesus Christ or the extension of this redemption by a providential care of them in time. Certainly, it can hardly be denied that children of God can damage their fellowship with God through disobedience, and, consequently, fail to enjoy the blessings that are obtained through obedience. This truth is abused by some modern Primitive Baptists to give comfort to those who fully reject Jesus Christ and live lives given over to gross immorality, and to justify a judgment of the eternal security of the unrepentant. This hardly follows as a legitimate extension of the truth that God's children can be disobedient, but is imposed to justify a virtual universalism.
Though it is true that there is a difference between being saved and having the full assurance and knowledge of being saved, some modern Primitive Baptists extend this distinction unbiblically to the point that there is no effective temporal distinction between those set apart and the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. When "two salvations" or "two faiths" is applied to make regenerate people out of the reprobate among those that openly blaspheme and reject Jesus Christ, one can clearly perceive universalism gone to seed.
Brother Fralick stated:
"The main point, though, is that even if I were to go back and rewrite my posting, and change my verbage of "two faiths" to one faith with two aspects, the substance remains the same. Passages yoking faith with salvation must still be given an interpretation. So I express it differently. What is that stage or aspect of the ONE faith which unites us to Christ, as in Gal. 3:26? Is it:
1) faith below the consciousness through the preaching of Jesus?
2) cognitive faith through the preaching of Jesus?
3) cognitive faith through the preaching of men?
Or some other permutation? This is not a haphazard handling of a subject, but a legitimate question based on the various aspects of faith as defined by the very inventors of this regeneration-conversion divorcement."
The essential misunderstanding here is that faith through the gospel as preached by man must be distinct in substance from the faith wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God alone. They are the same, or fundamentally the same, save in the degree of intellectual knowledge about the gospel that may be given through the preaching of man. One cannot separate out the faith of Christ wrought immediately by the Spirit from the propositional truth of the gospel as preached by man to those effectually called under the sound of the gospel. I have said this in multiple posts. The faith in Christ, wrought by the Spirit alone, assents, at the very least inwardly, to gospel propositions to some degree; the faith effected by the Spirit is an immediate revelation of the person of Christ, the gospel propositions corroborate this revelation, which is a spiritual reality. The sufficient condition of Biblical faith is not propositions of language but a spiritual revelation of the person of Christ wherein true sons cry Abba, Father (Gal. 4:6).
Gal. 3:23-26 seems to be more fully explained by Galatians 4:1-9. Gal. 4:5 does not make receiving the adoption of sons contingent on a mere intellectual apprehension and assent to propositions, though this text is fully consistent with such apprehension in mentally competent adults under the sound of the man-preached gospel, but the adoption is effected in time by an intrusive, effectual work of God through the Spirit of Christ by which sons cry, 'Abba Father', in a spiritual, vital faith in the person of Christ. This root groaning that "cannot be uttered" under girds and is the basis of all true, evangelical faith in the gospel as preached by man. It need not be fully separated exegetically from the gospel as preached by man, especially in plain contexts of evangelical faith in the New Testament, but is fully associated so that no text in the N.T. that states the necessity of faith for salvation should be absent this fundamental sense of it. Galatians 4:6 explains the basic nature of faith in Christ of 3:26.
Brother Fralick stated:
"The scriptures annihilate the idea of a time gap between regeneration and conversion, and thus the position that says that one receives seed faith in regeneration, and then evangelical faith one week, one year, or twenty years later. It does so by specific proof texts in which evangelical faith as preached by MAN is included as part of the transition in which one goes from death in sins to life in Christ."
The scripture plainly indicates that a regenerate person can be united to Christ without a full, intellectual apprehension of gospel truth. A fair examination of Galatians 4:9-11 proves that it is possible that truly regenerate persons, known of God in the covenant of grace, can be in error in regard to how they are apprehended of in Christ Jesus, as Paul also concedes in Philippians 3.
Paul considers, in Galatians 4:11, that the Galatians are either false professors or truly regenerate persons in error. He does not assert the fact of either, but plainly states his fear of the former by the possibility of the latter; conversely, he states his concern of the latter by the possibility of the former.
The preclusion by brother Fralick that there are not degrees of conversion among the regenerate controverts what is evidently possible from this passage, and from much of Hebrews. Paul could not write the Hebrew audience if he thought it was a forgone conclusion that those in error were and are false professors. The exhortation of Paul to the visible, community of believers establishes that children of God can be in error from the gospel and in need of temporal deliverance, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh (Jude 23). Gospel conversion obviously admits of degrees in terms of the full stature of Christ, and the regenerate may either live stunted spiritual lives in the kingdom or enjoy fuller, spiritual blessings through obedience. As Sonny Pyles puts it, the elect will either grow in grace or groan in disgrace.
Specific texts which include evangelical faith as a part of the transition from spiritual death to life establish that Christ is the object of true faith. The fact that the Spirit effects faith in the person of Christ under the sound of the gospel, including some degree of assent to gospel propositions, does not establish that faith is created by the rational hearing of the audible gospel. When a man hears the audible gospel and faith is effected by the Spirit, the faith effected is not fundamentally in the gospel propositions but in the person of Christ, which is the content of the gospel. This is the crucial point. Christ is not known savingly through propositions of language, even if these propositions mediate the Spirit (the meaningful mediation to man would be after faith in Christ is immediately effected by the Spirit), but by direct and immediate revelation of God, as Gal. 4:6 depicts. It is the Spirit of Christ, sent from God, wherein true sons respond in faith, not first in gospel propositions, though that surely follows to some degree in those under the sound of the gospel.
As Vincent points out in his word studies, Romans 10:17 does not refer by 'and hearing by the word of God' to the notion of gospel instrumentality to hearing, but, as the oldest manuscripts known have 'rhematos Xristou', to the idea that it is from the commission of Christ to the Apostles to preach the gospel indicated by Romans 10:15. The 'hearing' is the same word as 'report' in 10:16, so that Paul is clearly referring to the authority of Christ's command in the Commission of the Apostles to preach to all nations. The hearing under consideration does not carry with it a meaning of the individual's hearing of faith, but that belief of the individual is the intended effect of the divine command of Christ for the Apostles to report the gospel to all nations.
This passage should be evaluated in context and by word study before it is recklessly applied, as Paul then argues in 10:18,19 that the Gentile world had been preached to the point of satisfaction of Christ's commission to Paul.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Fralick on "Two Kinds of Faith"
Brother Fralick posted an article regarding what he takes to be the "two kinds of faith" argued by Primitive Baptists.
Brother Fralick wrote:
"It was always my understanding when I embraced conditional time salvation that there were two kinds of faith. There was what we call seed faith, sometimes referred to as embryonic, subconscious, or vital faith. And then there was what we call evangelical faith. The first one came in regeneration and was necessary for eternal salvation. This was the kind of faith under consideration when addressing those biblical passages which joined faith with salvation, but could not possibly be squeezed into the time salvation framework. The second one was wrought through the gospel, and deemed not necessary for eternal salvation based on established anti-means premises. The “regenerate” child of God who just happens to hear the gospel, conditionalism saying there is no guarantee that he shall, would now believe evangelically what he had already “believed” subconsciously."
Brother Fralick makes a simplistic caricature of what he takes to be Primitive Baptist views. Now, it could be true that some Primitive Baptists lend fuel to such a caricature, but this does not exonerate Brother Fralick from depicting views he opposes in a ridiculous light. He erroneously attributes what he sees as a dividing asunder of faith as the prejudicial effect of the doctrine of conditional, time salvation. There are clearly other motives at work, such as a consideration of the nature of the knowledge of the vital union to all the seed, which plainly makes this issue pertinent to doctrines other than conditional, time salvation. I wonder at his irrational obsession with conditional, time salvation, as he cannot prove that all defenses of this doctrine are false; yet he irrationally perseveres in accusing this doctrine alone to be the central poison of Primitive Baptists when it is clearly universalism and "no-hellism" that is the poison.
The central point of Brother Fralick is that the "two kinds of faith" issue among Primitive Baptists is in need of clarification.
First of all, Primitive Baptists do not believe in two kinds of faith, but one faith in Jesus Christ. To depict the view in the manner Brother Fralick does throughout his article is haphazard, and plainly intent on making a caricature of the actual position.
What Brother Fralick fails to recognize is that evangelical faith and "seed" faith cannot be fully separated from each other in those that have heard the gospel preached by man. These, in their essence, are the same, not contrary because evangelical faith is faith in the person of Christ just as "seed faith" is a rudimentary, spiritual revelation of the person of Christ. One with faith in the gospel cannot break down what they have learned from the Spirit with what they have been taught instrumentally by man because the gospel as preached by man is efficacious by the same power and revelation of God as that which is immediately revealed by God.
The relevance of a "seed faith" is only in regard to the effectual call apart from the gospel as preached by man, as in John 3:3-8, and in relation to what is fundamental to the evangelical faith of gospel belief. It is not relevant to support the inconsistent notion that a "seed faith" can stand fully contrary to faith in gospel propositions, except when some extend what is intrinsically salvific in gospel propositions beyond what is intrinsically salvific - beyond gospel, propositional truth that is tantamount to the experience of the person of Christ.
In this manner, when some argue that evangelical faith must necessarily encompass the propositional assent to the resurrection of Christ, Christ's death, or public confession of Jesus Christ at any one time they err in this standard for the faith of the vital union because of the unbelief of the disciples at the report of the risen Christ by women, Hymenaeus, and Philetus of the resurrection of Christ, Peter's unbelief in the necessity of Christ's death in Matt. 16:22, and the public denial of Jesus Christ by Peter.
Now, it is important to realize that this proves the nature of the object of faith in those that disbelieve(d) some portion of gospel propositions, not that they remained in a state of unbelief of these propositions. Growing to the full stature of Christ is a process of conversion and sanctification, which those truly effectually called are perfected toward, if by any means they might attain unto the resurrection of the dead (Phil. 3:10,11).
If Hymenaeus and Philetus were children of God in error, God would recover them out of the snare of the devil (2 Tim. 2:25,26) just as Peter and the disciples were converted from the error of their ways.
"Evangelical faith" and "seed faith" are both a faith in the person of Christ. "Evangelical faith" encompasses a greater degree of intellectual knowledge about Christ, but the central faith is still in the spiritual person of Christ, not in mere propositions of language.
There is no reason to disallow evangelical faith in any passage of the New Testament because the fact that faith in the person of Christ may be effected by the preached word is not in any way detrimental to the nature of Biblical faith, which is in the person of Christ. This faith in Christ is effected immediately by the Spirit, whether or not the Spirit is mediated through gospel propositions about Christ.
Brother Fralick wrote:
"It was always my understanding when I embraced conditional time salvation that there were two kinds of faith. There was what we call seed faith, sometimes referred to as embryonic, subconscious, or vital faith. And then there was what we call evangelical faith. The first one came in regeneration and was necessary for eternal salvation. This was the kind of faith under consideration when addressing those biblical passages which joined faith with salvation, but could not possibly be squeezed into the time salvation framework. The second one was wrought through the gospel, and deemed not necessary for eternal salvation based on established anti-means premises. The “regenerate” child of God who just happens to hear the gospel, conditionalism saying there is no guarantee that he shall, would now believe evangelically what he had already “believed” subconsciously."
Brother Fralick makes a simplistic caricature of what he takes to be Primitive Baptist views. Now, it could be true that some Primitive Baptists lend fuel to such a caricature, but this does not exonerate Brother Fralick from depicting views he opposes in a ridiculous light. He erroneously attributes what he sees as a dividing asunder of faith as the prejudicial effect of the doctrine of conditional, time salvation. There are clearly other motives at work, such as a consideration of the nature of the knowledge of the vital union to all the seed, which plainly makes this issue pertinent to doctrines other than conditional, time salvation. I wonder at his irrational obsession with conditional, time salvation, as he cannot prove that all defenses of this doctrine are false; yet he irrationally perseveres in accusing this doctrine alone to be the central poison of Primitive Baptists when it is clearly universalism and "no-hellism" that is the poison.
The central point of Brother Fralick is that the "two kinds of faith" issue among Primitive Baptists is in need of clarification.
First of all, Primitive Baptists do not believe in two kinds of faith, but one faith in Jesus Christ. To depict the view in the manner Brother Fralick does throughout his article is haphazard, and plainly intent on making a caricature of the actual position.
What Brother Fralick fails to recognize is that evangelical faith and "seed" faith cannot be fully separated from each other in those that have heard the gospel preached by man. These, in their essence, are the same, not contrary because evangelical faith is faith in the person of Christ just as "seed faith" is a rudimentary, spiritual revelation of the person of Christ. One with faith in the gospel cannot break down what they have learned from the Spirit with what they have been taught instrumentally by man because the gospel as preached by man is efficacious by the same power and revelation of God as that which is immediately revealed by God.
The relevance of a "seed faith" is only in regard to the effectual call apart from the gospel as preached by man, as in John 3:3-8, and in relation to what is fundamental to the evangelical faith of gospel belief. It is not relevant to support the inconsistent notion that a "seed faith" can stand fully contrary to faith in gospel propositions, except when some extend what is intrinsically salvific in gospel propositions beyond what is intrinsically salvific - beyond gospel, propositional truth that is tantamount to the experience of the person of Christ.
In this manner, when some argue that evangelical faith must necessarily encompass the propositional assent to the resurrection of Christ, Christ's death, or public confession of Jesus Christ at any one time they err in this standard for the faith of the vital union because of the unbelief of the disciples at the report of the risen Christ by women, Hymenaeus, and Philetus of the resurrection of Christ, Peter's unbelief in the necessity of Christ's death in Matt. 16:22, and the public denial of Jesus Christ by Peter.
Now, it is important to realize that this proves the nature of the object of faith in those that disbelieve(d) some portion of gospel propositions, not that they remained in a state of unbelief of these propositions. Growing to the full stature of Christ is a process of conversion and sanctification, which those truly effectually called are perfected toward, if by any means they might attain unto the resurrection of the dead (Phil. 3:10,11).
If Hymenaeus and Philetus were children of God in error, God would recover them out of the snare of the devil (2 Tim. 2:25,26) just as Peter and the disciples were converted from the error of their ways.
"Evangelical faith" and "seed faith" are both a faith in the person of Christ. "Evangelical faith" encompasses a greater degree of intellectual knowledge about Christ, but the central faith is still in the spiritual person of Christ, not in mere propositions of language.
There is no reason to disallow evangelical faith in any passage of the New Testament because the fact that faith in the person of Christ may be effected by the preached word is not in any way detrimental to the nature of Biblical faith, which is in the person of Christ. This faith in Christ is effected immediately by the Spirit, whether or not the Spirit is mediated through gospel propositions about Christ.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Garrett on John Owen
Stephen Garrett argued in his work on Primitive Baptists (here) that John Owen set forth the original, creedal, Calvinistic view of regeneration being both mediated through the gospel and immediately wrought by the Spirit.
The quoted paragraph below from Owens exemplifies this view:
"The will, in the first act of conversion (as even sundry of the schoolmen acknowledge),acts not but as it is acted, moves not but as it is moved; and therefore is passive therein, in the sense immediately to be explained. And if this be not so, it cannot be avoided but that the act of our turning unto God is a mere natural act, and not spiritual or gracious; for it is an act of the will, not enabled thereunto antecedently by grace. Wherefore it must be granted, and it shall he proved, that, in order of nature, the acting of grace in the will in our conversion is antecedent unto its own acting; though in the same instant of time wherein the will is moved it moves, and when it is acted it acts itself, and preserves its own liberty in its exercise. There is, therefore, herein an inward almighty secret act of the power of the Holy Ghost, producing or effecting in us the will of conversion unto God, so acting our wills as that they also act themselves, and that freely. The Holy Spirit, who in his power and operation is more intimate, as it were, unto the principles of our souls than they are to themselves, doth, with the preservation and in the exercise of the liberty of our wills, effectually work our regeneration and conversion unto God."
The first point to note is that Owens' view here pertained only to adults. An extraordinary effectual calling apart from the man-preached gospel of those deprived of outward revelation was allowed by Owens, Charnock, and the framers of the LCF by John 3:3-8.
The second point to note is that this view of the effectual call is not incompatible with an effectual call apart from a man-preached gospel, so there is no logical reason to refer to it as "ordinary" and the effectual call made apart from the gospel as preached by man as "extraordinary".
The central point is this: there is no scriptural basis to confine the object of faith wrought by the Spirit to the mere intellectual apprehension of gospel propositions of language. Certainly, the effectual call as Owens describes it above would entail gospel propositions, but gospel propositions about Christ should not be judged as necessary conditions of saving faith simply because mental competent adults naturally embrace gospel propositions as a part of faith. Gospel propositions are embraced by mentally competent adults because they corroborate the testimony of the Christ immediately revealed by Spirit.
This is proved by an appeal to John 6:53-58, 63; 14:6. Gospel words refer to the spiritual reality of the person of Christ that must be spiritually eaten and drank. It is not that the words alone are the end, but the spiritual person of Christ is the end; Christ is the literal way, the truth, and the life, not simply the proposition in it's letter: "Christ is the way, the truth, and the life." This proposition is void without the self-revelation of Christ by the Spirit through the words about Him, and it is clear when the proposition is not void, being attended with power of Christ, the mere proposition is not the fullness of the revelation and object of faith - the intimate experience of Christ by the Spirit is the fullness of gospel revelation, which clearly outstrips the bare, intellectual apprehension of gospel propositions.
The multitude that followed Christ in John 6 rejected Christ because they were offended by His words; they did not have Christ within them by Spirit and, therefore, rejected the exterior words of Christ of the metaphysical union of those truly given to Him by the Father.
Therefore, as the Spirit immediately reveals the person of Christ to those apart from the man-preached gospel, the Spirit immediately reveals the person of Christ by effecting faith in His person even with the gospel, as the faith effected is in the person of Christ, not simply propositions of language.
This is the force of Christ's declaration to Peter to any reasonable mind: "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Plainly, the man Christ with His gospel declarations was flesh and blood, and, if Christ only referred to the efficient cause of belief in gospel propositions, it is incorrect that flesh and blood was not an instrumental cause of Peter's belief. But Christ plainly made the knowledge of Peter - that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God - a truth belonging entirely to the Spirit (or that which is revealed by the Father) as 1 Cor. 2:9,10. So it is clear that to understand Jesus in Matt. 16:17 to only refer to the efficient power of the revelation of the Father is to make Christ a liar.
The same is true of John 1:12,13. The mistake of Stephen Garrett in this passage is to claim that belief in the name of Christ is limited to gospel propositions. The mistake of some Primitive Baptists is to not recognize that the 'power to become the sons of God' is an effectually created faith in the person of Christ, which is certainly had only in those which believe the gospel, not in those which fully reject it. They were born not of blood, nor of the will of man, but by the direct implantation of faith in the person of Christ. If they were born by the instrumental cause of the man-preached gospel, plainly they would have been born instrumentally by the will of man.
So, Garrett's view makes John 1:13 and Matt. 16:17 duplicitous.
The main point is that Owens view of the effectual call above is not incompatible with the effectual call apart from a man-preached gospel because the faith wrought by Spirit is first in Christ then in gospel propositions about Him that attend the effectual call.
The quoted paragraph below from Owens exemplifies this view:
"The will, in the first act of conversion (as even sundry of the schoolmen acknowledge),acts not but as it is acted, moves not but as it is moved; and therefore is passive therein, in the sense immediately to be explained. And if this be not so, it cannot be avoided but that the act of our turning unto God is a mere natural act, and not spiritual or gracious; for it is an act of the will, not enabled thereunto antecedently by grace. Wherefore it must be granted, and it shall he proved, that, in order of nature, the acting of grace in the will in our conversion is antecedent unto its own acting; though in the same instant of time wherein the will is moved it moves, and when it is acted it acts itself, and preserves its own liberty in its exercise. There is, therefore, herein an inward almighty secret act of the power of the Holy Ghost, producing or effecting in us the will of conversion unto God, so acting our wills as that they also act themselves, and that freely. The Holy Spirit, who in his power and operation is more intimate, as it were, unto the principles of our souls than they are to themselves, doth, with the preservation and in the exercise of the liberty of our wills, effectually work our regeneration and conversion unto God."
The first point to note is that Owens' view here pertained only to adults. An extraordinary effectual calling apart from the man-preached gospel of those deprived of outward revelation was allowed by Owens, Charnock, and the framers of the LCF by John 3:3-8.
The second point to note is that this view of the effectual call is not incompatible with an effectual call apart from a man-preached gospel, so there is no logical reason to refer to it as "ordinary" and the effectual call made apart from the gospel as preached by man as "extraordinary".
The central point is this: there is no scriptural basis to confine the object of faith wrought by the Spirit to the mere intellectual apprehension of gospel propositions of language. Certainly, the effectual call as Owens describes it above would entail gospel propositions, but gospel propositions about Christ should not be judged as necessary conditions of saving faith simply because mental competent adults naturally embrace gospel propositions as a part of faith. Gospel propositions are embraced by mentally competent adults because they corroborate the testimony of the Christ immediately revealed by Spirit.
This is proved by an appeal to John 6:53-58, 63; 14:6. Gospel words refer to the spiritual reality of the person of Christ that must be spiritually eaten and drank. It is not that the words alone are the end, but the spiritual person of Christ is the end; Christ is the literal way, the truth, and the life, not simply the proposition in it's letter: "Christ is the way, the truth, and the life." This proposition is void without the self-revelation of Christ by the Spirit through the words about Him, and it is clear when the proposition is not void, being attended with power of Christ, the mere proposition is not the fullness of the revelation and object of faith - the intimate experience of Christ by the Spirit is the fullness of gospel revelation, which clearly outstrips the bare, intellectual apprehension of gospel propositions.
The multitude that followed Christ in John 6 rejected Christ because they were offended by His words; they did not have Christ within them by Spirit and, therefore, rejected the exterior words of Christ of the metaphysical union of those truly given to Him by the Father.
Therefore, as the Spirit immediately reveals the person of Christ to those apart from the man-preached gospel, the Spirit immediately reveals the person of Christ by effecting faith in His person even with the gospel, as the faith effected is in the person of Christ, not simply propositions of language.
This is the force of Christ's declaration to Peter to any reasonable mind: "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Plainly, the man Christ with His gospel declarations was flesh and blood, and, if Christ only referred to the efficient cause of belief in gospel propositions, it is incorrect that flesh and blood was not an instrumental cause of Peter's belief. But Christ plainly made the knowledge of Peter - that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God - a truth belonging entirely to the Spirit (or that which is revealed by the Father) as 1 Cor. 2:9,10. So it is clear that to understand Jesus in Matt. 16:17 to only refer to the efficient power of the revelation of the Father is to make Christ a liar.
The same is true of John 1:12,13. The mistake of Stephen Garrett in this passage is to claim that belief in the name of Christ is limited to gospel propositions. The mistake of some Primitive Baptists is to not recognize that the 'power to become the sons of God' is an effectually created faith in the person of Christ, which is certainly had only in those which believe the gospel, not in those which fully reject it. They were born not of blood, nor of the will of man, but by the direct implantation of faith in the person of Christ. If they were born by the instrumental cause of the man-preached gospel, plainly they would have been born instrumentally by the will of man.
So, Garrett's view makes John 1:13 and Matt. 16:17 duplicitous.
The main point is that Owens view of the effectual call above is not incompatible with the effectual call apart from a man-preached gospel because the faith wrought by Spirit is first in Christ then in gospel propositions about Him that attend the effectual call.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Garrett's "Doublespeak"
Brother Stephen Garrett has often accused me of "doublespeak" in my defense of Primitive Baptist doctrine. In this posting, I will argue that it is brother Garrett that is truly guilty of "doublespeak" - of affirming mutually exclusive ideas.
First, in a recent posting on Perseverance, Garrett stated, quoting Steve Hays approvingly in white:
"In Calvinism, “eternal security” is conditional, not unconditional. It’s contingent on the “perseverance” of the saints. In fact, that’s why it’s traditionally dubbed the “perseverance of the saints.” Subtle, I know.
Of course, there’s a condition behind the condition. If “eternal security” is conditional on perseverance, then perseverance is conditional on God’s preservation of the elect. And that’s a sure thing."
This is in accordance with what I taught in my series on"Salvation - Conditional or Unconditional?" It is both."
In opposition to the cosmological argument for the existence of God, atheists and agnostics argue that the universe is an infinite chain of finite causes. The manifest contradiction of such an argument is the same with what Stephen Garrett affirms here.
If the supposed conditional perseverance is founded on the unconditional decree of God, as Hays and Garrett concede, perseverance is manifestly unconditional, and is clearly not "conditional" in the same way and in the same relationship as it is unconditional (this is an irrational contradiction). Hays and Garrett both confuse the conditional nature of obedience in good works and perseverance as conditions of salvation when they are plainly the evidences and process of what God has decreed and effected by the effectual call.
The sense in which they appear "conditional" is only relative to the unknown decree of God. The fact that God's decrees are not fully known to man establishes that salvation is only conditional in it's apprehension relative to the evidences of it in good works and perseverance, not that some degree of good works and preservation are not decreed by God.
Whatever God has established in His purpose shall be. This does not establish Fatalism because men do not know the mind of God, and it is clear from James 1 that no man should say when he is tempted that he is tempted of God; "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counsellor? (Rom. 11:34)"
There is an epistemic barrier that rationally precludes adopting a view of future events of time as if one knows the mind of God. Surely, whatever was, is, or shall be cannot have been otherwise in the purposes of God, or God is not omniscient and, manifestly, not omnipotent. But it is impossible to know God's future purposes with as much certainty as God has, even down to the absolute certainty of one's final salvation, which is the obvious basis of working out salvation with fear and trembling; because the perseverance in so working out salvation is upon what God works within, if so be that we have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
Salvation is only conditional in the minds of men who do not know with mathematical certainty what God has purposed for them and in them. This is not an actual condition of salvation, but an epistemic condition of salvation relative to the knowing mind.
Above all, the contradiction of Garrett and Hays is evident. The confusion here is in departing from the obvious logical consequence of the whole counsel of God and the London Confession in rooting eternal security in the electing purpose of God, not on man's will which is itself rooted in the electing purpose of God. Eternal security (in some degree of faith and holiness in time) is as unconditional as the predestination of God of the elect in Christ.
Next, I would like to note the same violation of the law of non-contradiction in Stephen Garrett's view of regeneration in that it is both immediate and mediate.
Brother Garrett argued (here) that regeneration is both mediate and immediate by appeal to Owen's writings. But the mediation of the Spirit through the gospel for Owen was still an effect wrought in man by an antecedent, immediate operation of the Spirit. The immediate work of the Spirit was not through the gospel, only the faith effected by the Spirit was through the gospel. Owen did not affirm that regeneration was both immediate and mediate in the same sense and in the same relationship. Clearly, regeneration is mediated through the gospel only after faith is immediately wrought by the Spirit. Owen affirmed the logical, antecedent, and immediate cause of the Spirit to regeneration and faith.
Owen's view of the preparatory work of the Spirit in the conviction of sin in unregenerate men seems to me to contradict 1 Cor. 2:14 and Romans 8:7. I would grant that natural men can be cognizant of sin by the law, but to carnal men, sold under sin, the law incites the enmity of concupiscence (Romans 7:8), not spiritual conviction meet for repentance. So it is not clear to me why it is necessary from the Scripture to attribute the condemnation of sin of which natural men are cognizant as a work of the Spirit.
However, even if it were granted that the Spirit convicts unregenerate men of the condemnation of the law before or in anticipation of the effectual and immediate work of the Spirit in regeneration, it would be a point quite beside the fact of whether true, biblical faith is immediate by the Spirit or mediated through the gospel, as Owen plainly states that faith is immediately wrought by the Spirit, which then establishes the instrumentality of the word by faith having it as it's object.
So, the impression Garrett gives as if regeneration is both mediate and immediate obscures the primacy of the Spirit in immediately effecting gospel mediation. Regeneration is not both mediate and immediate in the same sense and in the same relationship; rather, the mediate is established by the immediate work of the Spirit just as perseverance is established by God's preservation.
First, in a recent posting on Perseverance, Garrett stated, quoting Steve Hays approvingly in white:
"In Calvinism, “eternal security” is conditional, not unconditional. It’s contingent on the “perseverance” of the saints. In fact, that’s why it’s traditionally dubbed the “perseverance of the saints.” Subtle, I know.
In Calvinism, “eternal security” is contingent on sanctification, contingent on faith. Good works are a condition of salvation.
This is in accordance with what I taught in my series on"Salvation - Conditional or Unconditional?" It is both."
In opposition to the cosmological argument for the existence of God, atheists and agnostics argue that the universe is an infinite chain of finite causes. The manifest contradiction of such an argument is the same with what Stephen Garrett affirms here.
If the supposed conditional perseverance is founded on the unconditional decree of God, as Hays and Garrett concede, perseverance is manifestly unconditional, and is clearly not "conditional" in the same way and in the same relationship as it is unconditional (this is an irrational contradiction). Hays and Garrett both confuse the conditional nature of obedience in good works and perseverance as conditions of salvation when they are plainly the evidences and process of what God has decreed and effected by the effectual call.
The sense in which they appear "conditional" is only relative to the unknown decree of God. The fact that God's decrees are not fully known to man establishes that salvation is only conditional in it's apprehension relative to the evidences of it in good works and perseverance, not that some degree of good works and preservation are not decreed by God.
Whatever God has established in His purpose shall be. This does not establish Fatalism because men do not know the mind of God, and it is clear from James 1 that no man should say when he is tempted that he is tempted of God; "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counsellor? (Rom. 11:34)"
There is an epistemic barrier that rationally precludes adopting a view of future events of time as if one knows the mind of God. Surely, whatever was, is, or shall be cannot have been otherwise in the purposes of God, or God is not omniscient and, manifestly, not omnipotent. But it is impossible to know God's future purposes with as much certainty as God has, even down to the absolute certainty of one's final salvation, which is the obvious basis of working out salvation with fear and trembling; because the perseverance in so working out salvation is upon what God works within, if so be that we have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
Salvation is only conditional in the minds of men who do not know with mathematical certainty what God has purposed for them and in them. This is not an actual condition of salvation, but an epistemic condition of salvation relative to the knowing mind.
Above all, the contradiction of Garrett and Hays is evident. The confusion here is in departing from the obvious logical consequence of the whole counsel of God and the London Confession in rooting eternal security in the electing purpose of God, not on man's will which is itself rooted in the electing purpose of God. Eternal security (in some degree of faith and holiness in time) is as unconditional as the predestination of God of the elect in Christ.
Next, I would like to note the same violation of the law of non-contradiction in Stephen Garrett's view of regeneration in that it is both immediate and mediate.
Brother Garrett argued (here) that regeneration is both mediate and immediate by appeal to Owen's writings. But the mediation of the Spirit through the gospel for Owen was still an effect wrought in man by an antecedent, immediate operation of the Spirit. The immediate work of the Spirit was not through the gospel, only the faith effected by the Spirit was through the gospel. Owen did not affirm that regeneration was both immediate and mediate in the same sense and in the same relationship. Clearly, regeneration is mediated through the gospel only after faith is immediately wrought by the Spirit. Owen affirmed the logical, antecedent, and immediate cause of the Spirit to regeneration and faith.
Owen's view of the preparatory work of the Spirit in the conviction of sin in unregenerate men seems to me to contradict 1 Cor. 2:14 and Romans 8:7. I would grant that natural men can be cognizant of sin by the law, but to carnal men, sold under sin, the law incites the enmity of concupiscence (Romans 7:8), not spiritual conviction meet for repentance. So it is not clear to me why it is necessary from the Scripture to attribute the condemnation of sin of which natural men are cognizant as a work of the Spirit.
However, even if it were granted that the Spirit convicts unregenerate men of the condemnation of the law before or in anticipation of the effectual and immediate work of the Spirit in regeneration, it would be a point quite beside the fact of whether true, biblical faith is immediate by the Spirit or mediated through the gospel, as Owen plainly states that faith is immediately wrought by the Spirit, which then establishes the instrumentality of the word by faith having it as it's object.
So, the impression Garrett gives as if regeneration is both mediate and immediate obscures the primacy of the Spirit in immediately effecting gospel mediation. Regeneration is not both mediate and immediate in the same sense and in the same relationship; rather, the mediate is established by the immediate work of the Spirit just as perseverance is established by God's preservation.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Garrett on Faith is Begotten
On his BaptistGadfly blog, brother Stephen Garrett wrote a post entitled, "Faith is Begotten". I enjoyed the article, especially the fair-minded way brother Garrett handled the subject that could be considered intuitive proof that "regeneration" precedes faith, as he even admits.
Brother Garrett's position is that the Scripture is not sufficiently clear to insist on a definite order, and that faith and regeneration ought to be conceived as concurrent, one depending on the other.
I am not quite sure if brother Garrett is aware of the predicament he is in. The advent of the Spirit in the heart, soul, and mind of man obviously must precede faith and repentance (else grace is denied in a true semi-Pelagian fashion), whether or not one insists that a man is regenerated only when he repents and believes.
So it appears that brother Garrett is hiding behind the term "regeneration", as even Charnock plainly states the the man-preached gospel is first Spirit, then life, which plainly grants the necessity of the Spirit's first, antecedent work before spiritual life and faith.
So, in regard to regeneration and faith both being the work and effect of the Spirit, they refer to that spiritual life effected by the Spirit, and there is no regeneration where there is no faith in Christ. However, the faith effected by the Spirit is the embrace of the person of Christ, which is the content of the gospel, not simply the letter of the propositions of the gospel. So, Charnock, like the LCF, is inconsistent in insisting on the propositions of the gospel as preached by man as requisite for Christ's revelation in regard to the effectual calling of adults, as John 3:3-8 does not consider a mentally incompetent person. It is more consistent to argue that the competent mental faculties of adults naturally embrace in faith propositional truth that is consistent with the rudimentary, spiritual acquaintance of His person (1 Cor. 2:9,10).
The fact that the effectual calling of adults under the sound of the gospel produces a faith that is more knowledgeable about the person of Christ does not establish that faith knowledge is propositional truth. It is the reality of the person of Christ to which gospel propositions refer that is faith knowledge, the propositions of language only refer to this experience - they are not that essential experience, though they are naturally embraced in those with mental competence, even as a person would naturally embrace descriptive language by a sports commentator of the visual experience of a sporting event.
Gospel propositions are not requisite for the spiritual experience of Christ, as John 3:3-8 make clear, and when the Spirit effects faith in the person of Christ where the gospel is being preached, the embrace of the propositions about Christ are the result of Christ being recognized in the propositions of the gospel, as the secrets of his heart made manifest (1 Corinthians 14:24,25). When adults are effectually called with the gospel, they embrace a greater degree of intellectual knowledge about Christ as a part of faith by the gospel than do those effectually called apart from the gospel as preached by man, which calling apart from the gospel plainly both Charnock and the LCF allow by the distinction of an "ordinary" and "extraordinary" effectual calling.
So, in essence, I agree with Garrett that being born of God is a state of being from which faith in Christ cannot be divorced, except in a logical sense that regeneration may refer to the Spirit's antecedent work which is only complete when faith in Christ is immediately effected, but the Spirit's work is plainly antecedent to faith as a cause is to it's effect. Also, the gospel, as preached by man, is not the fundamental object of faith in it's propositional structure to any of the elect, though the propositions that refer to the spiritual experience of Christ are embraced in mentally competent adults as any descriptive truth would be embraced by those experiencing the very experience described. It is Christ Himself that is the true object of Biblical faith.
Brother Garrett's position is that the Scripture is not sufficiently clear to insist on a definite order, and that faith and regeneration ought to be conceived as concurrent, one depending on the other.
I am not quite sure if brother Garrett is aware of the predicament he is in. The advent of the Spirit in the heart, soul, and mind of man obviously must precede faith and repentance (else grace is denied in a true semi-Pelagian fashion), whether or not one insists that a man is regenerated only when he repents and believes.
So it appears that brother Garrett is hiding behind the term "regeneration", as even Charnock plainly states the the man-preached gospel is first Spirit, then life, which plainly grants the necessity of the Spirit's first, antecedent work before spiritual life and faith.
So, in regard to regeneration and faith both being the work and effect of the Spirit, they refer to that spiritual life effected by the Spirit, and there is no regeneration where there is no faith in Christ. However, the faith effected by the Spirit is the embrace of the person of Christ, which is the content of the gospel, not simply the letter of the propositions of the gospel. So, Charnock, like the LCF, is inconsistent in insisting on the propositions of the gospel as preached by man as requisite for Christ's revelation in regard to the effectual calling of adults, as John 3:3-8 does not consider a mentally incompetent person. It is more consistent to argue that the competent mental faculties of adults naturally embrace in faith propositional truth that is consistent with the rudimentary, spiritual acquaintance of His person (1 Cor. 2:9,10).
The fact that the effectual calling of adults under the sound of the gospel produces a faith that is more knowledgeable about the person of Christ does not establish that faith knowledge is propositional truth. It is the reality of the person of Christ to which gospel propositions refer that is faith knowledge, the propositions of language only refer to this experience - they are not that essential experience, though they are naturally embraced in those with mental competence, even as a person would naturally embrace descriptive language by a sports commentator of the visual experience of a sporting event.
Gospel propositions are not requisite for the spiritual experience of Christ, as John 3:3-8 make clear, and when the Spirit effects faith in the person of Christ where the gospel is being preached, the embrace of the propositions about Christ are the result of Christ being recognized in the propositions of the gospel, as the secrets of his heart made manifest (1 Corinthians 14:24,25). When adults are effectually called with the gospel, they embrace a greater degree of intellectual knowledge about Christ as a part of faith by the gospel than do those effectually called apart from the gospel as preached by man, which calling apart from the gospel plainly both Charnock and the LCF allow by the distinction of an "ordinary" and "extraordinary" effectual calling.
So, in essence, I agree with Garrett that being born of God is a state of being from which faith in Christ cannot be divorced, except in a logical sense that regeneration may refer to the Spirit's antecedent work which is only complete when faith in Christ is immediately effected, but the Spirit's work is plainly antecedent to faith as a cause is to it's effect. Also, the gospel, as preached by man, is not the fundamental object of faith in it's propositional structure to any of the elect, though the propositions that refer to the spiritual experience of Christ are embraced in mentally competent adults as any descriptive truth would be embraced by those experiencing the very experience described. It is Christ Himself that is the true object of Biblical faith.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Fralick on Dillon and Regenerated Idolaters
Brother Fralick stated:
"In an article entitled Faith, editor Randy Dillon writes of the regenerated child of God (emphasis mine):
"What will they believe? Will they believe in God, the Creator of the universe, will they believe in Jesus as the Christ, or will they believe in some other God? The faith that an individual receives in the new birth will cause him to believe in something greater than himself. He will worship some god, but it may not be the God of the Bible. Paul taught the men of Athens in Acts 17:23, 'Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.' The scriptures clearly teach that the Jews believed in God, the Creator of the Universe, but rejected Jesus as the Christ." (Primitive Advocate, Volume 5, 2002)
This is one of the worst conclusions that can be reached when one has adopted extreme time salvation. It suggests the change, if it can be called such, which regeneration brings is a conversion to idolatry!!! How dishonoring to Christ, whose purpose is to deliver His people, not just from the penalty (i.e. justification), but the practice of sins (i.e. sanctification). If it be true, though, that the change experienced by the regenerated sinner is worshipping "some God" then what did he worship beforehand? Anything? If he did not worship any God, who then is NOT regenerated, seeing that the worship of some God is practically common to the human race? If he did worship some God, then there is no real change. He simply continues as an idolater; only now he is a regenerated one!
How does such a statement make it into one of the leading publications? If it is an aberrant view, then a serious editorial slip was made somewhere!"
It is not clear that the error of Elder Dillon here stems from the embrace of conditional, time salvation. Rather, brother Fralick is assuming a relation based on the symptoms of a quasi-universalism that has been present among the PB's, especially due to the influence of 20th century ministers like Cayce and Sarrels. The controlling interpretative mechanism that under girds this type of minister is an irrational commitment to a nearly universal elect family. This is the fundamental commitment that taints the truth of emphasizing the salvation in time (from an evil generation, for example) that children of God can experience when they are obedient.
The view that the belief and knowledge essential to the effectual call is the, "belief in something greater than himself", is easily refuted as a sufficient condition for the knowledge of the new birth, as John 17:3 clearly makes the essential knowledge of the vital union knowledge of the person of Christ, not a general nebulous idea of a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. The idea that the intimate, spiritual knowledge of Christ is encompassed by an ontological argument for the existence of God is absurd, and is, no doubt, the same grounds that certain philosophers will appeal to Christ; and he will retort, "I never knew you" (Matt. 7:21).
This view of the knowledge of the effectual call shows the underlying commitment to a virtual universalism, it does not follow simply from viewing the conditional nature of disobedience among children of God, as in Jude 23.
This view is clearly refuted by the Fulton Confession in that the Fulton brethren did not footnote chapter 3, section 4 of the LCF in regard to the damnation of the idolatrous heathen in John 4:22. This cited text establishes the historic view of Primitive Baptists in regard to unbelieving, idolatrous worship of God, which clearly reproves Mr. Dillon and Sarrels.
Brother Fralick insinuates that this view is not an aberrant one among Primitive Baptists, but it clearly is an aberrant view relative to the Fulton Confession. The fact that it is held among some PB's only shows the influence of Cayce and Sarrels, it does not establish the historic view of Primitive Baptists.
"In an article entitled Faith, editor Randy Dillon writes of the regenerated child of God (emphasis mine):
"What will they believe? Will they believe in God, the Creator of the universe, will they believe in Jesus as the Christ, or will they believe in some other God? The faith that an individual receives in the new birth will cause him to believe in something greater than himself. He will worship some god, but it may not be the God of the Bible. Paul taught the men of Athens in Acts 17:23, 'Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.' The scriptures clearly teach that the Jews believed in God, the Creator of the Universe, but rejected Jesus as the Christ." (Primitive Advocate, Volume 5, 2002)
This is one of the worst conclusions that can be reached when one has adopted extreme time salvation. It suggests the change, if it can be called such, which regeneration brings is a conversion to idolatry!!! How dishonoring to Christ, whose purpose is to deliver His people, not just from the penalty (i.e. justification), but the practice of sins (i.e. sanctification). If it be true, though, that the change experienced by the regenerated sinner is worshipping "some God" then what did he worship beforehand? Anything? If he did not worship any God, who then is NOT regenerated, seeing that the worship of some God is practically common to the human race? If he did worship some God, then there is no real change. He simply continues as an idolater; only now he is a regenerated one!
How does such a statement make it into one of the leading publications? If it is an aberrant view, then a serious editorial slip was made somewhere!"
It is not clear that the error of Elder Dillon here stems from the embrace of conditional, time salvation. Rather, brother Fralick is assuming a relation based on the symptoms of a quasi-universalism that has been present among the PB's, especially due to the influence of 20th century ministers like Cayce and Sarrels. The controlling interpretative mechanism that under girds this type of minister is an irrational commitment to a nearly universal elect family. This is the fundamental commitment that taints the truth of emphasizing the salvation in time (from an evil generation, for example) that children of God can experience when they are obedient.
The view that the belief and knowledge essential to the effectual call is the, "belief in something greater than himself", is easily refuted as a sufficient condition for the knowledge of the new birth, as John 17:3 clearly makes the essential knowledge of the vital union knowledge of the person of Christ, not a general nebulous idea of a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. The idea that the intimate, spiritual knowledge of Christ is encompassed by an ontological argument for the existence of God is absurd, and is, no doubt, the same grounds that certain philosophers will appeal to Christ; and he will retort, "I never knew you" (Matt. 7:21).
This view of the knowledge of the effectual call shows the underlying commitment to a virtual universalism, it does not follow simply from viewing the conditional nature of disobedience among children of God, as in Jude 23.
This view is clearly refuted by the Fulton Confession in that the Fulton brethren did not footnote chapter 3, section 4 of the LCF in regard to the damnation of the idolatrous heathen in John 4:22. This cited text establishes the historic view of Primitive Baptists in regard to unbelieving, idolatrous worship of God, which clearly reproves Mr. Dillon and Sarrels.
Brother Fralick insinuates that this view is not an aberrant one among Primitive Baptists, but it clearly is an aberrant view relative to the Fulton Confession. The fact that it is held among some PB's only shows the influence of Cayce and Sarrels, it does not establish the historic view of Primitive Baptists.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Garrett's Rebuttal to the London Confession
Brother Stephen Garrett wrote (here):
"Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, recently made some comments about the London Confession of faith and stated that this old confession taught against the Gospel means position. (see here) This is an outlandish claim."
The London Confession clearly teaches against the "means position" of Garrett which denies that God effectually calls apart from the gospel today:
"I have denied that Jesus today personally preaches the Gospel to anyone..."
It is clear to any reasonable mind that the London Confession contradicts this assertion in section 3 of chapter 10 to the elect apart from the gospel as preached by man to whom Christ by the Spirit alone effectually calls.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Why take the Fulton Confession? It clearly upholds Hardshellism. It clearly is in disagreement with the London Confession on effectual calling and the use of means, as well as on the subject of the divine decrees. Does Jason think that the Fulton Confession accurately interprets the LBC? Hardshells are divided over the London Confession. The honest ones, like Elders S. T. Tolley and R. V. Sarrels, admit that the elders who wrote the footnotes to the Fulton Confession were dishonest in altering the clear meaning of the LBC. Others attempt to follow in the steps of the Fulton brethren by insisting that the London Confession did not teach the use of means in regeneration. Is that Jason's position? It seems to be. But, before I confront Jason about this, I want him to tell us frankly. The above words seem to agree with what the Fulton brethren said about the LBC regarding the use of Gospel preaching in accomplishing the new birth."
The Fulton Confession, by both what is footnoted and what is not footnoted, does not uphold what Brother Garrett takes to be modern Primitive Baptist views, as exemplified by Cayce and Sarrels. Wherever the London Confession is not footnoted, it must be taken as historically representative of the Primitive Baptists according to the Fulton Confession. I deny that it is in substantive disagreement with the LCF. The inconsistency of the LCF in regard to God's "ordinary" and "extraordinary" method of effectually calling the elect is opposed as an arbitrary distinction, but the substantive issue of whether God effectually calls in N.T. times apart from the gospel is something on which both confessions are obviously agreed. If one carefully reads the Fulton Footnotes without bias and without impugning the authors with the ulterior motives of later 20th Century Universalists or quasi-Universalists like Cayce and Sarrels, the Fulton Confession will be seen as consistent with the LCF.
I deny that the Fulton Confession objected to the conjoining of the gospel with the Spirit in the effectual call in terms of gospel faith being the fruit of the spiritual life effected by Spirit. The Fulton Footnotes objected to a formulation of the effectual call that made the word (man preached gospel) inconsistently essential to regeneration, as the framers of the LCF admitted by appeal to John 3:3-8. Brother Garrett may insist that the LCF conjoins the word and Spirit as Charnock did, but as pointed out in my blog on Garrett's appeal to Charnock, Charnock and the LCF can only logically mean by the conjoining of word and spirit in regeneration that the gospel is embraced in faith to those effectually called under the sound of the gospel, not that the effectual call may not occur apart from the gospel as preached by man, which was denied by the framers of the LCF by appeal to John 3:3-8.
The Fulton Footnote most likely to be misinterpreted by Garrett is the footnote to section one, chapter 10:
"Fulton Footnote: We do not understand that sinners are effectually called by the written word in any sense out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation but by Christ, the Word of God. The quickening and renewing of the Holy Spirit prepares the sinner to answer the gospel call, as seen in Section 2; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 John 4:6"
Now, this footnote does not say that Primitive Baptists reject that the elect may be effectually called under the sound of the gospel. The point here is exactly what I have made to Brother Garrett in regard to the misnomer of the "instrumental cause" of regeneration being the gospel. The spiritually dead, carnal man cannot rationally be said to exercise faith as the sole cause of regeneration. The dawning of spiritual understanding by faith in the mind of carnal man is the effect of something that cannot itself be the cause in contradiction. Is the cause man's understanding? Of course not, as that is what is effected. It is the objective gospel propositions, then. Yet, how are these causing the understanding and faith in man in an instrumental fashion without his understanding? How can the propositions provide causation to the understanding of carnal man in a meaningful sense without the Spirit being viewed as effecting immediately the capacity for faith and understanding ex nihilo?
Succinctly, Charnock's view of effectual calling conceals the logical fact that gospel propositions cannot be instrumental to carnal man until the Spirit has had a necessary immediate work. This is the point of the above footnote.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Further, the views of Cayce, Sarrels, and Richards are not the "aberrant views of some individuals," but are from highly respected men among the Hardshells, recognized leaders. Ironically, most Hardshells would consider the views of brother Jason to be"aberrant." We have consistently asked Jason to provide us with the writings of present day Hardshell elders where they teach contrary to the Hardshell elders we have cited. He has not yet given us these evidences."
I recently attended the Chambers Creek Association in Dallas/Fort Worth, TX. I personally talked with multiple Elders, and none openly avowed the teachings of Cayce or Sarrels. Elder Clifford Gowens of Dallas, TX admitted to me that Hassell was far more representative of the Primitive Baptists than Cayce or Sarrels. I recognize that this is on my testimony alone, but what has Garrett given? His father? What "proof" has he given that is beyond interpretation? I have challenged his proof - he does not have objective proof of the general teachings of the Primitive Baptists unless he takes the Fulton Confession, which was a true majority report. Views that controvert the Fulton Confession are not historically representative of the Primitive Baptists. Cayce and Sarrels are generally regarded with a high degree of skepticism among the Primitives I have visited in Oklahoma and Texas.
Perhaps there are portions of the country (especially those parts under the influence of his paper for so many years) that are more open to Cayce. After all, there is an Association in the Appalachians, so I have read, that are Universalists - I'm sure they can't get enough of Cayce and Sarrels.
Brother Garrett stated:
"It is ironic how Jason can condemn following Cayce and Sarrels and yet uphold their essential heresy! Cayce affirmed that the Athenians to whom Paul preached were regenerated before they heard the Gospel and while they were pagans! And, though Jason at the first attacked this view of Cayce, yet here he now endorses it! How does he know that the pagans were "regenerated"? Does the text affirm it? Jason, on one hand, countenances the view of Cayce that polytheists are "born again," and yet says he is to be "blamed" for such a view. "Consistency thou art a jewel."
This is a ridiculous "argument". Brother Garrett was incensed when I "misrepresented" him in terms of the basis of election in Ephes. 1:11 and the LCF being the good pleasure of God, not God's foreknowledge, which his ill-advised statements that precipitated my contention surely seemed to establish. And here he is, setting a precedent in hypocrisy in representing my views any way he pleases so as to show them contradictory. "Consistency thou art a jewel."
My very point was that the effectual call cannot be assumed of those that do not believe the gospel. I did not say as a matter of certainty that any of the Mars Hill pagans were regenerate before Paul preached to them. My point was that gospel belief is the only sufficient evidence of regeneration. Cayce's error was affirming as certain what the Bible does not affirm as certain.
Brother Garrett stated:
"How could their being "born again" be "previous to the gospel message" if Jesus personally preached the Gospel to them in order to birth them and make them believers in him? Jason, "the legs of the lame are not equal." If they were "born again" before hearing of Jesus by Paul, then why did they testify that these were "new" and "strange" things that they were hearing?"
"Previous to the gospel message" referred to the gospel message of Paul on Mars Hill. The reaction to Paul's gospel in that it was "new" and "strange" was an initial reaction by some of the philosophers in the marketplace before Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. I was not arguing that the heathen pagans should be thought of as regenerate in heathen idolatry, but that it was possible, for all we know of this account, that those that did believe Paul after his sermon on Mars Hill could have been born again previously. Clearly, the majority of the Athenian pagans manifested non-election in gospel rejection after Paul's sermon, and perhaps it was this majority that referred to Paul as a babbler, setting forth "new" and "strange" teachings. My point was that the certain affirmation that all of the pagans were born again, even those who rejected the gospel, is completely without scriptural or rational justification.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason cited Eze. 3: 6 (as did Sonny Pyles in the sermon I reviewed - see here) and suggested that the heathen had born again children of God among them. But, if that is so, how is it that the Lord did NOT send Ezekiel or the Hebrew prophets to them? By Jason's own reasoning he proves that there were NOT any born again heathen idolaters because they were not delivered from it!"
If there were born again individuals among those to whom God did not send Ezekiel, it does not follow that God was limited to Ezekiel in dealing with them. Just because God did not send Ezekiel to them does not prove that God would not deal with them by some other method, obviously. And in this same manner, the fact that God chose not to send Ezekiel to them does not establish that none of them could have (even possibly) been born again. The point of the passage is that the pagans would have believed Ezekiel, if God had sent him to them. The passage does not conclusively prove that any were regenerate, as it may refer to a reformation of which non-elect pagans are capable, as in Luke 10:12-14.
Brother Garrett stated:
"The Psalmist testified:
"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord." (Psa. 147: 19-20)If the Lord chose not to send his word to the heathen, to deliver them from idolatry and belief in false gods, then, by Jason's own reasoning, there were no born again children of God among the heathen. Either he must admit this or agree with Richards. As long as he disagrees with Richards, and asserts that all those who are born again will be delivered from belief in false gods, then he must admit that there were no born again people among the heathen. The Lord did not send Ezekiel! He did not choose to deliver the heathen from idolatry!"
As a fact, heathen nations were gross idolaters, even practicing human sacrifice. I would accept Psalms 147:19-20 as proof of the general truth that such Gentile nations were generally eternally damned. It is untenable to view the effectually called as gross idolaters. Psalms 135:15-18 proves this conclusively to any reasonable mind:
"The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; they have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths. They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them."
I'm not sure if there can be a clearer picture of the unregenerate state that the heathen exemplify. However, this is the general truth. It is still possible that God may have effectually called men and women among the heathen, but obviously they would no longer be pagan qua pagan.
Brother Garrett stated:
"That is a false statement. The London Confession clearly asserts the certain damnation of the heathen who do not know God and believe in Jesus. (see here) So did John Gill. (see here) "
John Gill allowed that the heathen could be saved extraordinarily. He only asserted the general damnation of the heathen. The London Confession is talking about the non-elect in chapter 10, section 4, as the beginning of the section makes perfectly clear. The non-elect heathen are damned in this section clearly, but this section is obviously considering only the non-elect, as it states clearly. Brother Garrett asserts that the framers of the LCF condemned all those apart from the gospel, but this controverts section 3 of chapter 10.
Now, he argues:
""Those incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word" has no reference to heathen, but to infants and idiots. "Incapable" relates to physical inability. The heathen are not physically "incapable" of hearing the Gospel as infants and idiots. Throughout the confession they teach that all the elect will attain to faith and repentance."
Brother Garrett wishes he could prove the confession meant to only refer to the mentally incompetent by this phrase. Why didn't they simply state it that way? Garrett is without foundation here because the citation of John 3:3-8 does not involve an infant or a mentally incompetent person. It plainly involves Nicodemus, a person capable of being called by the ministry of the Word.
The fact is that the phrase, "...so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word," is only conditioned by "incapable" as referring to infants and the mentally handicapped in Garrett's mind. The possibility of the salvation of those geographically incapable of being outwardly called by the gospel is obviously provided for here. Garrett is dishonest to disallow what the framers plainly allowed by their general provision. If they wanted to be more specific than what they were, they surely could have been. And he thinks his interpretations of Scripture are honest and forthright! Here we observe the lawyer in Garrett - twisting, molding, and sculpting the objective into his own image. Dare we call it idolatry?
Brother Garrett stated:
"Further, Jason is again contradicting himself. He says, on the one hand, that he does not believe all heathen polytheists are lost, but then, on the other hand, says that all the elect will be delivered from faith in false gods."
I have only allowed the possibility of the effectual calling of geographically isolated peoples. I have never asserted their certain existence. How many times do I have to say that? My position is the balanced position of Gill, the LCF, and the Scripture - only extending to what lengths the Scripture does in regard to the unevangelized. And brother Garrett loves to represent me as affirming the certain existence of regenerated idolaters; if I misrepresented him like this he would be up in arms.
The fact is, that it is impossible to know that all people born in heathen lands, apart from the gospel, are eternally damned. I think the Scriptures establish that idolatrous heathens are damned, but I will not affirm the absolute, certain damnation of all individuals that have not been preached to by man (and neither did Gill or the LCF).
Brother Garrett stated:
"Brown wrote:
"Therefore, the historic position of the Primitive Baptists is the logical one of the LCF itself: that the fate of the heathen rests entirely on God, but that, if there were such persons, they certainly did not exist without the person of Christ as the object of their implanted faith."More doublespeak and contradiction! Christ is the object of faith for all who are born again! But, if this is so, then why argue for the regeneration of those who do not believe in Jesus, and who are heathen idolaters? If a "heathen" has "faith" in Christ, then why are you arguing for the idea of the heathen being saved without belief in Jesus and the Gospel?"
Garrett seems hopelessly confused. I have only ever argued for the possibility of regeneration by the Spirit alone among the heathen, not that such people, once regenerated, would remain in idolatrous worship! I have only argued against the certain damnation of those isolated from the gospel as preached by man.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Garrett on Balaam
Brother Garrett offered the criticism (here) that Primitive Baptists are forced to conclude Balaam as a child of God because of the logic implicit in this quoted question and answer from Elder Moore:
"8. Do you not then teach that some might want salvation but could not have it because they are not one of the elect?
Answer: No, the man who wants salvation already HAS it."
Since Balaam stated in Numbers 23:10, "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!", Brother Garrett argued that Primitive Baptists are committed to viewing Balaam, contrary to Jude 11, as a child of God.
It is difficult to understand why Brother Garrett makes so many facile arguments. Is his problem with Primitive Baptist beliefs really exemplified by such a perceived incompatibility as this? The facile nature of many of his arguments suggest that he has set himself against the Primitive Baptists irrespective of rational or scriptural justification. It seems rather obvious to me that he could easily foresee the rejoinder to such an argument, and would, in the spirit of sincerity, dismiss articulating it, even for the sake of his, presumably, sincere cause, as he is more likely to be dismissed by those he sincerely entreats by shallow argumentation.
The proffering of this supposed difficulty reminds me of opponents of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture who superficially quote two Scriptures and claim they are irreconcilable.
Surely Brother Garrett can distinguish the desire to escape the consequences of sin from the true, spiritual conviction of sin. Primitive Baptists obviously refer by "the man who wants salvation" to men that sincerely want salvation, spiritually recognizing their sinful condition and willing to turn from it in true, spiritual repentance, not to those hypocrites, like Balaam, in unregenerate bondage to sin, who are intelligently afraid of the eternal consequences of the sin he, nonetheless, loves, as a son of perdition.
Brother Garrett might as well include Esau in the 12th chapter of Hebrews who sought a place of repentance (or restoration to his birthright) carefully with tears. If only Esau could have had his birthright and ate it too. The damned can certainly desire eternal heaven and even Christ in terms of what they perceive they can gain (Matt. 7:21). What rational mind would choose the eternal damnation of the unjust over the immortality of the righteous? But the damned love mammon, and are appetitive beasts meant to be taken and destroyed.
"8. Do you not then teach that some might want salvation but could not have it because they are not one of the elect?
Answer: No, the man who wants salvation already HAS it."
Since Balaam stated in Numbers 23:10, "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!", Brother Garrett argued that Primitive Baptists are committed to viewing Balaam, contrary to Jude 11, as a child of God.
It is difficult to understand why Brother Garrett makes so many facile arguments. Is his problem with Primitive Baptist beliefs really exemplified by such a perceived incompatibility as this? The facile nature of many of his arguments suggest that he has set himself against the Primitive Baptists irrespective of rational or scriptural justification. It seems rather obvious to me that he could easily foresee the rejoinder to such an argument, and would, in the spirit of sincerity, dismiss articulating it, even for the sake of his, presumably, sincere cause, as he is more likely to be dismissed by those he sincerely entreats by shallow argumentation.
The proffering of this supposed difficulty reminds me of opponents of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture who superficially quote two Scriptures and claim they are irreconcilable.
Surely Brother Garrett can distinguish the desire to escape the consequences of sin from the true, spiritual conviction of sin. Primitive Baptists obviously refer by "the man who wants salvation" to men that sincerely want salvation, spiritually recognizing their sinful condition and willing to turn from it in true, spiritual repentance, not to those hypocrites, like Balaam, in unregenerate bondage to sin, who are intelligently afraid of the eternal consequences of the sin he, nonetheless, loves, as a son of perdition.
Brother Garrett might as well include Esau in the 12th chapter of Hebrews who sought a place of repentance (or restoration to his birthright) carefully with tears. If only Esau could have had his birthright and ate it too. The damned can certainly desire eternal heaven and even Christ in terms of what they perceive they can gain (Matt. 7:21). What rational mind would choose the eternal damnation of the unjust over the immortality of the righteous? But the damned love mammon, and are appetitive beasts meant to be taken and destroyed.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Garrett on Charnock
Brother Garrett has asserted that my criticism of his view of effectual calling is refuted by the passages of Stephen Charnock that he quoted (here).
Brother Garrett stated:
"Stephen Charnock wrote, in his sermon "A Discourse of the Word, the Instrument of Regeneration," the following as it relates to the efficient and instrumental causes of regeneration. These citations refute the argumentation of Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, wherein he argued that the instrumental cause must be viewed as the efficient cause."
My principal point is that it is perfectly clear that to the spiritually dead, carnal man, the instrument of the gospel is not instrumental except as the effect of the Spirit; the gospel is instrumental as the object of the faith and life effected by the Spirit - it is not instrumental to the Spirit's work per se, only the immediate effects of the Spirit in faith, however absolute these effects be. In this wise it is a misnomer to refer to the gospel as an instrumental cause of regeneration when it cannot logically be instrumental to the immediate work of the Spirit. This view is "sayable", but, carried to it's logical conclusion, it is not really thinkable.
The pertinent question is how the gospel is instrumental by the Spirit in causing faith in carnal man. The gospel is simply propositional truth about Christ. This propositional truth is used by the Spirit to effect faith in the carnal mind, presumably. But how is it that the Spirit effects faith literally by the propositional truth of the gospel? Faith is mental assent and trust. How is this drawn out through the gospel by the Spirit? The Spirit grants the capacity for faith in carnal man, surely immediately. Even Garrett argues that this is done immediately, but, then, the gospel is not an instrumental cause of this immediate act. It is clear, then, in admitting that the creation of faith is immediate by the Spirit, Garrett cannot argue that gospel propositions are instrumental to this immediate act, and contradicts himself in claiming to hold to Charnock's inchoate view.
The carnal man does not have the spiritual capacity to exercise faith in the gospel apart from the agency of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14), so what exactly is the account here of how the carnal mind embraces the gospel by the Spirit without the Spirit not being the antecedent cause of gospel instrumentality in faith and repentance?
When the Spirit first moves the carnal man to freely embrace the gospel, how is the Spirit's moving of the carnal man mediated meaningfully through the gospel when he is still carnal and incapable of spiritual discernment? When the Spirit moves the carnal man how is it meaningfully "through the gospel"? How is he quickened meaningfully by gospel propositions when he is dead and incapable of profiting in understanding the propositions until after he is quickened?
Charnock states, "The Word of Christ is first Spirit, then life." The essential question that must be addressed is this: how are the gospel propositions Spirit? If they are Spirit in that they convey the Spirit, they effect life in that they convey the Spirit, not that understanding of the words can be meaningfully asserted before the spirit effects life and understanding. What is the essential thing by which the carnal man is reborn? Charnock argues that the Spirit effects life by the gospel, but the understanding of men that are, logically, yet carnal precludes meaningful instrumentality, and his view dissolves into a logical denial of 1 Cor. 2:14.
I, or any Primitive Baptist, argue that the gospel, as propositional truth declared by men, is instrumental to conversion to discipleship, and that God, by the Spirit, is the efficient cause of it.
The fundamental difference between Charnock and the Primitive Baptist view of effectual calling is that Charnock views the conversion to open discipleship as a sine qua non of effectual calling in those "grown up (adults)" or of God's "ordinary" method of effectual calling, but, like the LCF, this is arbitrarily asserted in view of the effectual calling allowed in Charnock and the LCF in those, like infants, apart from the gospel, who are effectually called "extraordinarily".
If Charnock, and the LCF are understood as arguing that the gospel as preached by man is the instrumental cause of spiritual life in the sense that the gospel is the instrumental cause of faith, which is the immediate effect of the Spirit, this is perfectly reasonable to those effectually called under the sound of the gospel. They cannot logically argue that the gospel is instrumental to the moving cause of life, but that the gospel is instrumental to spiritual life because it is the content of the gospel that must be embraced as a necessary condition of spiritual life. It is only in this sense that gospel "instrumentality" can be logically argued. The point I have made is, even considering an effectual call made through the word, knowledge of the word cannot be meaningfully asserted as instrumental to the first cause of life, which is the Spirit. The instrumentality of the gospel can only logically refer to the spiritual life effected by the Spirit in the faith exercised, which may have has as it's object the word or the content of the gospel, which is Christ.
Is it correct, then, to say that the instrumental cause of the effectual call is the gospel? Strictly by logic it cannot be asserted reasonably because the instrumentality of the gospel as a cause of faith can only be meaningfully understood of those already moved by the Spirit. The instrumentality of the gospel cannot be affirmed as instrumental until the dead have been raised and the capacity for faith established. Spiritual resurrection mediated through the gospel is a void instrument on the deaf ears of the unregenerate until faith in the gospel is effected by the Spirit. Spiritual resurrection cannot be argued as simultaneous with gospel belief, as, if the Spirit is not the antecedent cause, this would remove all logical basis to say that only the Spirit is the efficient cause.
Charnock is unclear on how the carnal man's understanding of the word as an instrumental cause of regeneration can be formulated without the Spirit's operation being viewed as antecedent to gospel belief. His view, upon logical analysis, collapses into the view that the Spirit alone must be an antecedent cause of any meaningful sense of gospel "instrumentality". Any clarification of what he meant relative to Total Depravity would collapse into affirming the necessity of the Spirit's immediate and antecedent work.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Stephen Charnock wrote, in his sermon "A Discourse of the Word, the Instrument of Regeneration," the following as it relates to the efficient and instrumental causes of regeneration. These citations refute the argumentation of Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, wherein he argued that the instrumental cause must be viewed as the efficient cause."
My principal point is that it is perfectly clear that to the spiritually dead, carnal man, the instrument of the gospel is not instrumental except as the effect of the Spirit; the gospel is instrumental as the object of the faith and life effected by the Spirit - it is not instrumental to the Spirit's work per se, only the immediate effects of the Spirit in faith, however absolute these effects be. In this wise it is a misnomer to refer to the gospel as an instrumental cause of regeneration when it cannot logically be instrumental to the immediate work of the Spirit. This view is "sayable", but, carried to it's logical conclusion, it is not really thinkable.
The pertinent question is how the gospel is instrumental by the Spirit in causing faith in carnal man. The gospel is simply propositional truth about Christ. This propositional truth is used by the Spirit to effect faith in the carnal mind, presumably. But how is it that the Spirit effects faith literally by the propositional truth of the gospel? Faith is mental assent and trust. How is this drawn out through the gospel by the Spirit? The Spirit grants the capacity for faith in carnal man, surely immediately. Even Garrett argues that this is done immediately, but, then, the gospel is not an instrumental cause of this immediate act. It is clear, then, in admitting that the creation of faith is immediate by the Spirit, Garrett cannot argue that gospel propositions are instrumental to this immediate act, and contradicts himself in claiming to hold to Charnock's inchoate view.
The carnal man does not have the spiritual capacity to exercise faith in the gospel apart from the agency of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14), so what exactly is the account here of how the carnal mind embraces the gospel by the Spirit without the Spirit not being the antecedent cause of gospel instrumentality in faith and repentance?
When the Spirit first moves the carnal man to freely embrace the gospel, how is the Spirit's moving of the carnal man mediated meaningfully through the gospel when he is still carnal and incapable of spiritual discernment? When the Spirit moves the carnal man how is it meaningfully "through the gospel"? How is he quickened meaningfully by gospel propositions when he is dead and incapable of profiting in understanding the propositions until after he is quickened?
Charnock states, "The Word of Christ is first Spirit, then life." The essential question that must be addressed is this: how are the gospel propositions Spirit? If they are Spirit in that they convey the Spirit, they effect life in that they convey the Spirit, not that understanding of the words can be meaningfully asserted before the spirit effects life and understanding. What is the essential thing by which the carnal man is reborn? Charnock argues that the Spirit effects life by the gospel, but the understanding of men that are, logically, yet carnal precludes meaningful instrumentality, and his view dissolves into a logical denial of 1 Cor. 2:14.
I, or any Primitive Baptist, argue that the gospel, as propositional truth declared by men, is instrumental to conversion to discipleship, and that God, by the Spirit, is the efficient cause of it.
The fundamental difference between Charnock and the Primitive Baptist view of effectual calling is that Charnock views the conversion to open discipleship as a sine qua non of effectual calling in those "grown up (adults)" or of God's "ordinary" method of effectual calling, but, like the LCF, this is arbitrarily asserted in view of the effectual calling allowed in Charnock and the LCF in those, like infants, apart from the gospel, who are effectually called "extraordinarily".
If Charnock, and the LCF are understood as arguing that the gospel as preached by man is the instrumental cause of spiritual life in the sense that the gospel is the instrumental cause of faith, which is the immediate effect of the Spirit, this is perfectly reasonable to those effectually called under the sound of the gospel. They cannot logically argue that the gospel is instrumental to the moving cause of life, but that the gospel is instrumental to spiritual life because it is the content of the gospel that must be embraced as a necessary condition of spiritual life. It is only in this sense that gospel "instrumentality" can be logically argued. The point I have made is, even considering an effectual call made through the word, knowledge of the word cannot be meaningfully asserted as instrumental to the first cause of life, which is the Spirit. The instrumentality of the gospel can only logically refer to the spiritual life effected by the Spirit in the faith exercised, which may have has as it's object the word or the content of the gospel, which is Christ.
Is it correct, then, to say that the instrumental cause of the effectual call is the gospel? Strictly by logic it cannot be asserted reasonably because the instrumentality of the gospel as a cause of faith can only be meaningfully understood of those already moved by the Spirit. The instrumentality of the gospel cannot be affirmed as instrumental until the dead have been raised and the capacity for faith established. Spiritual resurrection mediated through the gospel is a void instrument on the deaf ears of the unregenerate until faith in the gospel is effected by the Spirit. Spiritual resurrection cannot be argued as simultaneous with gospel belief, as, if the Spirit is not the antecedent cause, this would remove all logical basis to say that only the Spirit is the efficient cause.
Charnock is unclear on how the carnal man's understanding of the word as an instrumental cause of regeneration can be formulated without the Spirit's operation being viewed as antecedent to gospel belief. His view, upon logical analysis, collapses into the view that the Spirit alone must be an antecedent cause of any meaningful sense of gospel "instrumentality". Any clarification of what he meant relative to Total Depravity would collapse into affirming the necessity of the Spirit's immediate and antecedent work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)