Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/did-he-really-mean-to-say-that.html
Brother Garrett stated:
"He makes a big issue out of the use of the subjunctive mood signified by the word"might." But, the question of doubt about the certainty of the effect of the preaching in producing life in God, per the subjuntive mood, does not negate the fact that the Gospel was preached with the purpose of bringing men to the divine life. The subjunctive mood does express purpose. What is the purpose of preaching the Gospel? Jason says "so that they might live." And to this Peter would agree, as I also would. If he believes this, then why is he still an anti-means Hardshell?"
However, Brother Garrett assumes that Peter views the purpose of the gospel here as imparting life, but this is not consistent with the same judgment that God will render at the final judgment as in verse 5. God's judgment of all men at the great, final judgment will discern the quick and the dead, not make the dead alive.
Peter's use of κριθῶσι in verse 6, is consistent with ζῶσι, in that the judgment that is made by men preaching the gospel is to the same end of judging the quick and the dead as in God's final judgment, which is a revelation to all men present (not to God Himself, as Brother Garrett has ridiculously thought I espoused) of the quick and the dead, not making dead men alive. This is certainly purposive, just not the purpose Brother Garrett wants to eisegete.
In this way, the 'might live' is 'according to God in the spirit'; the contingency is not of the quickening of regeneration but of consistency with being in a quickened state (as opposed to the state of men like the Gentiles, which is in the flesh). This same principle is taught by Paul in Ephesians 5:14, "Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give thee light." The context of this text is an exhortation for those that serve God to "reprove the unfruitful works of darkness (vs. 11)", to "walk as children of light (vs. 8)", "Be not partakers with them (the unregenerate) (vs. 7)", "let no man deceive you with vain words (vs. 6)", and to "walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise (vs. 15)".
The gospel plainly calls the quickened from among the dead, and it is for this reason that Peter says that it is for 'this reason' the gospel is preached also, referring to the same judgment that God will make of the quick and the dead at the final judgment - the judgment that will reveal the spiritual state of all men to themselves and everyone else (not to God), not to make the dead alive but to reveal them to all to the glory of God's justice and His mercy.
This is all quite germane to Peter's contrast of the spiritual Gentiles' way of life in verses 3 and 4, and the manner that the gospel of Christ's suffering in verse 1 is to the end of 'arming' the regenerate that they should not spend the rest of their time living according to the lusts of the Gentiles (vs. 2). The context of this chapter is not of the first quickening of regeneration, but of the converting and sanctifying influence of the gospel.
Brother Garrett stated:
"I will give Jason this to wrestle with in regard to his remarks about the subjunctive mood. It is also from the epistles of Peter. Peter wrote:
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring(dative case, subjunctive mood) us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." (I Peter 3: 18)
Does the subjunctive mood in this passage imply purpose? Does it imply doubt and uncertainty? We will be waiting to hear from Jason on these questions. We look to be educated."
I never said that the subjunctive mood does not imply purpose. I said that it implies contingency. The contingency of the text above surely refers to the fact that Christ had to die to bring many Sons to glory. The subjunctive need not imply uncertainty, especially when the God-man was the agent making the contingent a reality. The atonement of the elect was certainly contingent on Christ's suffering and death, and Gethsemane certainly proved that it was no mean process to the Christ to accept his chalice from the Father.
I wonder at Brother Garrett's sarcasm in reference to his 'education' at my hands. I'm sure that the disciples felt slighted intellectually as well when Christ placed a child in their midst and said, "Unless you come to the kingdom of God as a little child, ye shall in no wise enter therein." Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
Brother Garrett stated:
"The Gospel is intended "to persuade men of the salvation it reveals" but not to persuade them to believe it for salvation? How is that logical? The Gospel is intended to "persuade men of the terror of the Lord" but not to induce them to repent and beg forgiveness? The Gospel is intended to "persuade men in regard to man's standing before God without Christ" but not so that they might be saved and converted? What a weak "apology" from our "apologist"! "
It probably does seem illogical to someone who believes that salvation is only obtained once someone believes, or upon belief. Belief is the confirmation and evidence of eternal salvation, not eternal salvation itself. If it is objectionable to depict the gospel as a testimony to one's salvation that is already accomplished in Jesus Christ, then Brother Garrett would correct the Apostle Paul who stated in Ephesians 1:13, "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise..." If, as Brother Garrett supposes, it is illogical to persuade men of the salvation revealed in the gospel, Paul was incorrect to say 'gospel of your salvation' because the hearing and believing would have been the salvation.
This is not Paul's emphasis, and neither is it accurate to say, as Paul did, that in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed (Romans 1:17). Brother Garrett believes Paul meant to say applied (to the elect) or offered (to all men including the non-elect). But it is revealed from faith to faith, not from faith to "no faith".
Brother Garrett stated:
"In these words Jason interprets Peter's words to simply say that reception of the Gospel reveals who was already saved, not only to men but to God! He interprets the word"judge" as meaning to "discern" or "to find out," who is saved and who is lost. Jason said - "God himself will so judge and discern them at the final judgment." God does not"discern" them now? God does not "know them that are his" even now? Jason says that the word "judge" means the same thing when it speaks of men judging (discerning) the saved from the lost and when it speaks of God doing the same. "
I'm really not sure where Brother Garrett is going here or the logical force of his point. I never said that God's separation of the sheep from the goats at the day of judgment is because He doesn't know them already, but we know that all men will be judged as the damned or joint-heirs of Christ at that time. Just as God will judge the quick and the dead at the final judgment by separating His sheep from the goats, the preached word separates the sheep of God from the goats of this world, so that they might be judged whether they be of man, in the flesh, or of God, living according to God in the Spirit, as in 2 Cor. 2:15,16, "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life."
Brother Garrett stated:
"Besides, whether those who are "dead" are the physically dead or spiritually dead, is not pertinent to a discussion of Hardshellism and anti-meanism."
I agree that whether the persons referred to as 'dead' in verse 6 refer to being physically or spiritually dead is really not at issue, except that Brother Garrett assumed it was ignorant to take any other position than that it refers to the state of physical death. It is not at all clear how this position can be taken with certainty in the face of the verb 'zosi', which is in the present tense and subjunctive mood. How is it that they 'can be' living according to God in the spirit in the present if they are physically dead?
Brother Garrett is just resisting the plain teaching of 4:5,6 in which Peter emphasizes the function of the gospel being that of judgment. It has the same dividing effect, not life-giving effect, as God's judgment at the last judgment. Whether it's referring to the physical or spiritual dead in verse 6, the gospel was preached to them for the same cause of judgment present in verse 5 in the way that God will judge the wicked Gentiles of verses 3 and 4.
This kind of judgment presumes that the gospel is not the means of quickening itself, but that the preaching of the gospel attests to the Word of God, Jesus Christ, that has begotten the sons of God to a lively hope (1 Peter 1:22-25).
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Garrett's Comments 04-25-2012
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/still-uprooted.html
Part of the difficulty of the current discussion with Brother Garrett is defining terms.
By the gospel being offered to the non-elect, Brother Garrett means in a very narrow sense. He is referring to the "technical" choice or liberty the non-elect have to believe the gospel; he does not believe that they are actually morally capable of believing the gospel. In addition, he does not believe that the non-elect must be morally capable of believing the gospel in order for it to be incumbent upon them to believe, nor should he.
God is not indebted to save all men because He saves some, neither are the non-elect excused for their rejection of the gospel because they have a nature that desires only evil. Man is ultimately responsible for sin, and rejecting eternal life. There is, therefore, nothing unwarranted about saying that the non-elect are called by the gospel to believe in this sense; otherwise, why are they judged in 2 Thess. 1:7-9 for gospel rejection?
However, Calvinists are criticized on this point by Pelagian Arminians, and some Primitive Baptists also criticize them. I, personally, agree with Garrett here, as the duty the non-elect have to believe the gospel surely rests on the same grounds. Also, how is it the wicked are held responsible for their evil works, the works other than Adam's representative sin, if they are morally incapable of good? Surely it is also upon the same grounds of their liberty to do otherwise, even if they are self-determined to do only evil.
On the other hand, Brother Garrett surely should be able to be open to the sense in which this "offer" of eternal life to the non-elect seems duplicitous since it is not attended effectually with the spirit. It seems problematic to see this "offer" as an example of the "loving kindness" of God when God surely knows that they are dead in their sins, though it is man's fault.
It does seem absurd to place physical nourishment next to a physically dead man, then claim it is an act of kindness. Or, perhaps, slightly more accurately, it seems absurd to count it as "kindness" to open your house to a rabid animal, thinking that the kindness might overcome it's nature - plainly it will not. How can any act be thought of as "kind" when it is not logically possible that it will result in the intended effect? It would be different if Christ didn't know otherwise.
The idea that Brother Garrett suggests that some things are "good in themselves" does not prove that there is not some degree of correlation, however possible, between a desired outcome and the doing of those things among men. He then just places a groundless idea on earth into the heavens where it supposedly redounds to the glory of God. Let him name one act of considered kindness from an earthly example that cannot presuppose some degree of effect, at least in intention, that is isolated from the deed. He cannot prove such "kindness" exists, for there are a million hypothetical explanations that could be given to explain intention. Even if the considered effect is unrelated to the recipient of the alleged kind act, it would prove an intended effect.
Therefore, and especially because of the context of the various passages, it seems to me that Christ is pronouncing judgment on the non-elect by these references to an "available" salvation for them. Certainly, as I shall show below, John 5:40 is clearly in this contextual vein, and we would be remiss to take 5:34 out of consideration of Christ's entire monologue of chapter 5.
As an aside, What does Brother Garrett mean by God 'making provision' for the non-elect? If he means provisions of what is commonly referred to as "common grace" in terms of the rain falling on the just and the unjust, I would agree. But if he means that Christ's atonement embraced every individual man, then Brother Garrett has departed from Scripture. Are you saying that, like Fuller, Brother Garrett?
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason wrote:
"And, even if He did, would it not be obvious that they couldn't be saved because they were not of the elect?"Yes, it is true that they could not be saved. But, I have already addressed that. No one whom God foreknows will not believe will believe. But, this does not keep God, out of his goodness, from offering salvation anyway. Does Jason not believe that God does things for his goodness sake?"
If Brother Garrett is simply arguing that eternal salvation is presented by Christ as the destiny of those that believe and that that belief is presented in terms of the liberty of the will of the non-elect, though the will of the non-elect only desires evil, that is true enough. It is perfectly biblical to say that the natural man is not coerced by any other factor than his own wicked desires in his unbelief, and that he cannot believe because he will not believe. It is in this sense that belief could be said to be "available" to them, but it is only in respect to the liberty of their will, not the moral nature of their evil will. It is not possible that they could be eternally delivered, and Christ is not offering his atonement to the non-elect by John 5:40, as eternal deliverance proceeds directly from Christ's atonement, not man's belief, which is the confirmation of that reality.
The emphasis of 5:40 that Brother Garrett wants to make requisite in gospel preaching requires the premise that it is upon gospel belief that eternal life is given, which cannot follow from 5:37,38 or 5:24. The statement of Christ, "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life (John 5:40)," is assumed by Brother Garrett to imply that eternal life is fully contingent on belief. It is clear from John 5:37,38 that belief is fully contingent of having the Father's word abiding in one, as he clearly states, "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not."
It is not that Christ is implying that they could be eternally saved at that precise moment in 5:40 merely by a sudden belief, as Christ has already explained why it is that they cannot believe in verse 38 that quite precludes that possibility. The contextual basis of Christ's words in 5:40 is to confirm their damnation according to their own will, not establish any other actual possible outcome. It is as impossible for them to desire to believe in Christ as to have life because the word of the Father does not abide in them.
Now, Brother Garrett wants gospel ministers to emphasize 5:40 and ignore 5:38. I have harmonized both texts. Surely we should preach the whole counsel of God.
Let us consider:
"If you reject the gospel of Christ, you have not the word of the Father abiding in you, and, therefore, you will not come to Christ that you might have life."
"Believe on Christ that you might have life."
Brother Garrett is taking the emphasis of the latter out of context of the entire dialogue. Given the proper context of the former, 5:40 is obviously stated in a context of condemnation, and is logically consistent with verse 38.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Garrett's Faux Gold
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/gold-or-stubble.html
Brother Garrett stated:
"In his most recent posting - "Garrett's Straw, Hay, and Stubble" - Jason responds to an older posting of mine - "Jesus Uproots Hardshellism" - and it is quite obvious that what we wrote in that posting was "gold, silver, and precious stones" seeing it has endured the test of fire, the test of opposition. Jason certainly did not burn up or destroy what I wrote in that posting! In fact, for all he said, he did not even address the main argument! "
Honestly, I was giving Brother Garrett the benefit of the doubt. It was not clear from his blog post, "Jesus Uproots Hardshellism", that Brother Garrett was making the argument that the gospel is as genuinely offered to the non-elect as it is to the elect. I thought he might have been arguing simply that the idea that gospel belief is incumbent on the non-elect is an idea on which all Primitive Baptists should agree. I rebutted this idea by explaining that the majority do admit this.
Now that he has made it clear that he means to say that the gospel is offered to all men in the same sense of potential salvation, not from a viewpoint of a lack of knowledge of election but from a viewpoint that the non-elect could actually be eternally saved, I will gladly address this contradiction of irresistible grace. For the purpose of this refutation, I will presume Brother Garrett's Calvinistic view that the propositional gospel of the New Testament is God's means of applying eternal salvation. It is not logically possible to argue that the gospel is meaningfully offered to every, individual man without discrimination and also hold that God draws the elect irresistibly to gospel belief.
Quite obviously, if Brother Garrett believes, as he claims, in irresistible grace, the sense in which the non-elect are "offered" the gospel without such irresistible grace is fundamentally distinct from the sense in which the elect are irresistibly drawn to believe the gospel. Irresistible grace applies the righteousness of God through gospel belief to the elect, so the sense in which this process could be described as an "offer" is certainly a misnomer. Conversely, without irresistible grace, the sense in which we would describe the non-elect as being "offered" salvation through the gospel without the means by which faith could be exercised in the gospel, is, again, a misnomer.
It might sound good on paper to some, but it is patently absurd. It's simply more Fullerite nonsense like the statement that Christ's atonement was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only to those that believe.
The idea that the gospel should be "offered freely" in the gospel presentation because the non-elect actually could be saved is a rather obvious contradiction, or a denial of 5 point Calvinism. And it is hardly supported by claiming that Jesus contradicted Himself in John 10:38. Brother Garrett simply assumes that Jesus means a saving belief and a saving knowledge in this passage.
Does Brother Garrett think that Nicodemus was regenerate because he believed that Jesus was a teacher sent from God in John 3? He has already stated in a previous blog months ago that he thought Nicodemus was unregenerate. But why, then? He believed Jesus was from God - the same thing Christ is exhorting the pharisees to believe in John 10:38. How is it all "obvious" and "clear" that Jesus is actually telling them to be eternally saved? And, even if He did, would it not be obvious that they couldn't be saved because they were not of the elect?
Besides, if Christ were exhorting them to believe and be eternally saved, it follows that their possible salvation was provided for by God, and, again, that would contradict election and particular redemption, as they were non-elect. It is elementary to see the contradictions here. Or is Brother Garrett intending to call these doctrines into question? Is the Bible not clear enough in John 10:29, Brother Garrett? The security and particularity of redemption to the elect in John 10:29 is all the logical force necessary to be equally confident in the eternal hatred of God toward Esau and the non-elect pharisees of this passage. It is inconceivable and contradictory to believe, therefore, that Christ included, among His sheep, the non-elect of which he said, "Ye are of your Father the devil", in John 8:44.
If Christ's "invitation" was a testament to the liberty of their will, meaning that they were at liberty to believe, not that they would ever desire to believe because the unregenerate do not have the desire to believe, what would that establish, as Christ did not die for them. The Father did not draw them to Christ's gospel. The mere liberty of their will is a moot point because, in their liberty, they are still under bondage to sin. So, though gospel belief is an option for them in terms of a choice that is available, it is universally descriptive of the will of the non-elect that they choose among competing evils.
Still, even if Christ were "inviting" them to believe the gospel, as they are at liberty to do, it would not imply that they could actually be eternally saved in regard to the decrees of God.
Obviously Brother Garrett is not saying that they "could be eternally saved" from the limited perspective of man, or the liberty of their will, because it is Christ Himself that has noted that they are not of His sheep. Their eternal destiny is as sure as the eternal destiny of the elect, and if Brother Garrett supposes that their eternal destiny is not certain, then, to that same degree it is not certain for the elect. All of this is manifest denial of the doctrine of election, or a hopelessly convoluted doctrine of man.
Lastly, how is it at all consistent for Brother Garrett to claim Christ is "offering" eternal salvation to the non-elect pharisees in John 10:38 when John 12:39 clearly states that they could not believe? It states that their minds were blinded and kept from belief.
Brother Garrett stated:
"In his most recent posting - "Garrett's Straw, Hay, and Stubble" - Jason responds to an older posting of mine - "Jesus Uproots Hardshellism" - and it is quite obvious that what we wrote in that posting was "gold, silver, and precious stones" seeing it has endured the test of fire, the test of opposition. Jason certainly did not burn up or destroy what I wrote in that posting! In fact, for all he said, he did not even address the main argument! "
Honestly, I was giving Brother Garrett the benefit of the doubt. It was not clear from his blog post, "Jesus Uproots Hardshellism", that Brother Garrett was making the argument that the gospel is as genuinely offered to the non-elect as it is to the elect. I thought he might have been arguing simply that the idea that gospel belief is incumbent on the non-elect is an idea on which all Primitive Baptists should agree. I rebutted this idea by explaining that the majority do admit this.
Now that he has made it clear that he means to say that the gospel is offered to all men in the same sense of potential salvation, not from a viewpoint of a lack of knowledge of election but from a viewpoint that the non-elect could actually be eternally saved, I will gladly address this contradiction of irresistible grace. For the purpose of this refutation, I will presume Brother Garrett's Calvinistic view that the propositional gospel of the New Testament is God's means of applying eternal salvation. It is not logically possible to argue that the gospel is meaningfully offered to every, individual man without discrimination and also hold that God draws the elect irresistibly to gospel belief.
Quite obviously, if Brother Garrett believes, as he claims, in irresistible grace, the sense in which the non-elect are "offered" the gospel without such irresistible grace is fundamentally distinct from the sense in which the elect are irresistibly drawn to believe the gospel. Irresistible grace applies the righteousness of God through gospel belief to the elect, so the sense in which this process could be described as an "offer" is certainly a misnomer. Conversely, without irresistible grace, the sense in which we would describe the non-elect as being "offered" salvation through the gospel without the means by which faith could be exercised in the gospel, is, again, a misnomer.
It might sound good on paper to some, but it is patently absurd. It's simply more Fullerite nonsense like the statement that Christ's atonement was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only to those that believe.
The idea that the gospel should be "offered freely" in the gospel presentation because the non-elect actually could be saved is a rather obvious contradiction, or a denial of 5 point Calvinism. And it is hardly supported by claiming that Jesus contradicted Himself in John 10:38. Brother Garrett simply assumes that Jesus means a saving belief and a saving knowledge in this passage.
Does Brother Garrett think that Nicodemus was regenerate because he believed that Jesus was a teacher sent from God in John 3? He has already stated in a previous blog months ago that he thought Nicodemus was unregenerate. But why, then? He believed Jesus was from God - the same thing Christ is exhorting the pharisees to believe in John 10:38. How is it all "obvious" and "clear" that Jesus is actually telling them to be eternally saved? And, even if He did, would it not be obvious that they couldn't be saved because they were not of the elect?
Besides, if Christ were exhorting them to believe and be eternally saved, it follows that their possible salvation was provided for by God, and, again, that would contradict election and particular redemption, as they were non-elect. It is elementary to see the contradictions here. Or is Brother Garrett intending to call these doctrines into question? Is the Bible not clear enough in John 10:29, Brother Garrett? The security and particularity of redemption to the elect in John 10:29 is all the logical force necessary to be equally confident in the eternal hatred of God toward Esau and the non-elect pharisees of this passage. It is inconceivable and contradictory to believe, therefore, that Christ included, among His sheep, the non-elect of which he said, "Ye are of your Father the devil", in John 8:44.
If Christ's "invitation" was a testament to the liberty of their will, meaning that they were at liberty to believe, not that they would ever desire to believe because the unregenerate do not have the desire to believe, what would that establish, as Christ did not die for them. The Father did not draw them to Christ's gospel. The mere liberty of their will is a moot point because, in their liberty, they are still under bondage to sin. So, though gospel belief is an option for them in terms of a choice that is available, it is universally descriptive of the will of the non-elect that they choose among competing evils.
Still, even if Christ were "inviting" them to believe the gospel, as they are at liberty to do, it would not imply that they could actually be eternally saved in regard to the decrees of God.
Obviously Brother Garrett is not saying that they "could be eternally saved" from the limited perspective of man, or the liberty of their will, because it is Christ Himself that has noted that they are not of His sheep. Their eternal destiny is as sure as the eternal destiny of the elect, and if Brother Garrett supposes that their eternal destiny is not certain, then, to that same degree it is not certain for the elect. All of this is manifest denial of the doctrine of election, or a hopelessly convoluted doctrine of man.
Lastly, how is it at all consistent for Brother Garrett to claim Christ is "offering" eternal salvation to the non-elect pharisees in John 10:38 when John 12:39 clearly states that they could not believe? It states that their minds were blinded and kept from belief.
1 Peter 4:5,6
Brother Garrett criticized my view of 1 Peter 4:6 as an "obvious falsehood"; so obvious that he also claims it further demonstrates my irrational commitment to "Hardshellism" as well as my general ignorance.
Pretty strong words. Surely Brother Garrett, to make such a bold and weighty claim, can clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrate the obviousness of my failure of biblical exegesis of 1 Peter 4:6.
This is another clear example of Brother Garrett extending himself and making claims far beyond what he can possibly or actually demonstrate. This characteristic is fundamental to his attacks on Primitive Baptists, and suggests that his views are not nearly as compelling as he thinks they are.
I will deal with the main thrust of his post in a later entry; in this post I want to exegete 1 Peter 4:6.
Does Brother Garrett agree with John Gill's exegesis on every passage of the Bible? Surely I differ with him here, but I certainly do not differ with him unsupported by other commentaries. Philip Doddridge, Daniel Whitby, and Adam Clarke supported viewing the 'dead' of 1 Peter 4:5,6 as referring to the spiritual Gentiles of verses 3 and 4 who think it strange that Christians, the quickened, run not to their same excess of riot.
The judgment of verse 5 is expressly the judgment of God that will require -ἀποδώσουσιν, which is future indicative - an 'account' of the same spiritual Gentiles' riotous living. The contextual flow from verse 4 to 5 is unmistakable, and denies that Peter would exclude the spiritually dead Gentiles from his reference to the dead that will be judged, so how can Gill be right that the dead of verse 6 are only the physically dead Christians when the dead of verse 5 must at least include the spiritually dead Gentiles? And if the dead of verse 6 refers to all the dead, both elect and not elect, and refers to when the gospel was preached while they were living, this interpretation would be of the same effect in terms of using this text as I have applied it.
1 Peter 4:1, as Gill supposes, refers to the natural death of Christians by 'he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin'. Why, then, does Peter state in the next verse, 'that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh'? This is a horse that will not run. It is plain that Peter is exhorting Christians that 'to suffer in the flesh', as Christ suffered, is the natural consequence - arm yourselves likewise - of being made conformable to Christ's death. Christ's death, and the elect's spiritual death with him, was a death to sin, that it should no longer be the governing principle in the lives of the quickened. This is made plain by Peter in the continuing context of verse 3.
On top of this, 'but live according to God in the spirit' of 4:6 is translated from ζῶσι, which is in the present subjunctive, showing contingency. The life is presently contingent in Peter's usage, which makes no sense to refer to those already naturally dead in that manner. Peter is saying that the gospel is preached to the spiritually dead so that they might live according to God in the spirit.
Peter did not know the actual spiritual state of individuals as Christ did. Certainly, the end of preaching the gospel is to persuade men of the salvation it reveals and of the terror of the Lord (2 Cor. 5:11) in regard to man's standing before God without Christ. This is consistent with this text, but it is significant that Peter places the purpose of the gospel as judgment in terms of it's polemical effect, signifying that he was reflecting on those that rejected the gospel, as εὐηγγελίσθη - gospel preaching - is in the aorist (past tense). The judgment of verse 6 seems to be man's judgment or Peter's judgment because it is a contingent (subjunctive mood) and past judgment, which indicates that Peter believed that his past preaching showed the spiritually quickened and the spiritually dead.
This is quite consistent with the context as well, as Peter is contrasting the spiritual Gentile and the Christian, and ends his discussion on the contrast of them in verses 3-5 by saying that the gospel is an instrument of judgment to discern the quick and the dead just as God himself will so judge and discern them at the final judgment. Verse 6 is seen as an earthly reflection of the heavenly judgment of God in verse 5, and it is verse 5's judgment that is echoed and extended by Peter. It was for the purpose of discernment that Peter preached the gospel to all men, even those that seemed to be dead in riotous living so that they might be judged in regard to whether they were of God or not. This is devastating to Garrett's view of soteriology because it presumes that the gospel is an instrument of revelation rather than an instrument of salvation proper; it presumes the gospel allows one to judge 'whether there is any life abiding in them' or the standing of an individual as the quick or the dead, not simply effect life.
A careful examination of the Greek verbs in verse 6 proves that Gill's view cannot be correct, and the view I have given illustrates in the precise manner how that the heavenly judgment that will be, as in verse 5, is the same purpose for the gospel here in time - to discern the sheep from the goats. What a beautiful couple of texts!
Pretty strong words. Surely Brother Garrett, to make such a bold and weighty claim, can clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrate the obviousness of my failure of biblical exegesis of 1 Peter 4:6.
This is another clear example of Brother Garrett extending himself and making claims far beyond what he can possibly or actually demonstrate. This characteristic is fundamental to his attacks on Primitive Baptists, and suggests that his views are not nearly as compelling as he thinks they are.
I will deal with the main thrust of his post in a later entry; in this post I want to exegete 1 Peter 4:6.
Does Brother Garrett agree with John Gill's exegesis on every passage of the Bible? Surely I differ with him here, but I certainly do not differ with him unsupported by other commentaries. Philip Doddridge, Daniel Whitby, and Adam Clarke supported viewing the 'dead' of 1 Peter 4:5,6 as referring to the spiritual Gentiles of verses 3 and 4 who think it strange that Christians, the quickened, run not to their same excess of riot.
The judgment of verse 5 is expressly the judgment of God that will require -ἀποδώσουσιν, which is future indicative - an 'account' of the same spiritual Gentiles' riotous living. The contextual flow from verse 4 to 5 is unmistakable, and denies that Peter would exclude the spiritually dead Gentiles from his reference to the dead that will be judged, so how can Gill be right that the dead of verse 6 are only the physically dead Christians when the dead of verse 5 must at least include the spiritually dead Gentiles? And if the dead of verse 6 refers to all the dead, both elect and not elect, and refers to when the gospel was preached while they were living, this interpretation would be of the same effect in terms of using this text as I have applied it.
1 Peter 4:1, as Gill supposes, refers to the natural death of Christians by 'he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin'. Why, then, does Peter state in the next verse, 'that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh'? This is a horse that will not run. It is plain that Peter is exhorting Christians that 'to suffer in the flesh', as Christ suffered, is the natural consequence - arm yourselves likewise - of being made conformable to Christ's death. Christ's death, and the elect's spiritual death with him, was a death to sin, that it should no longer be the governing principle in the lives of the quickened. This is made plain by Peter in the continuing context of verse 3.
On top of this, 'but live according to God in the spirit' of 4:6 is translated from ζῶσι, which is in the present subjunctive, showing contingency. The life is presently contingent in Peter's usage, which makes no sense to refer to those already naturally dead in that manner. Peter is saying that the gospel is preached to the spiritually dead so that they might live according to God in the spirit.
Peter did not know the actual spiritual state of individuals as Christ did. Certainly, the end of preaching the gospel is to persuade men of the salvation it reveals and of the terror of the Lord (2 Cor. 5:11) in regard to man's standing before God without Christ. This is consistent with this text, but it is significant that Peter places the purpose of the gospel as judgment in terms of it's polemical effect, signifying that he was reflecting on those that rejected the gospel, as εὐηγγελίσθη - gospel preaching - is in the aorist (past tense). The judgment of verse 6 seems to be man's judgment or Peter's judgment because it is a contingent (subjunctive mood) and past judgment, which indicates that Peter believed that his past preaching showed the spiritually quickened and the spiritually dead.
This is quite consistent with the context as well, as Peter is contrasting the spiritual Gentile and the Christian, and ends his discussion on the contrast of them in verses 3-5 by saying that the gospel is an instrument of judgment to discern the quick and the dead just as God himself will so judge and discern them at the final judgment. Verse 6 is seen as an earthly reflection of the heavenly judgment of God in verse 5, and it is verse 5's judgment that is echoed and extended by Peter. It was for the purpose of discernment that Peter preached the gospel to all men, even those that seemed to be dead in riotous living so that they might be judged in regard to whether they were of God or not. This is devastating to Garrett's view of soteriology because it presumes that the gospel is an instrument of revelation rather than an instrument of salvation proper; it presumes the gospel allows one to judge 'whether there is any life abiding in them' or the standing of an individual as the quick or the dead, not simply effect life.
A careful examination of the Greek verbs in verse 6 proves that Gill's view cannot be correct, and the view I have given illustrates in the precise manner how that the heavenly judgment that will be, as in verse 5, is the same purpose for the gospel here in time - to discern the sheep from the goats. What a beautiful couple of texts!
Monday, April 23, 2012
Garrett's Straw, Hay, and Stubble
Brother Garrett often criticizes Primitive Baptists for believing that the gospel is not of use to the non-elect. I agree that it is of no positive use, but more on this anon.
Now, Brother Garrett also claims that regeneration is "ordinarily" effected through the gospel, so he also disagrees with Primitive Baptists in the utility of the gospel to the elect. It is on this point that he will argue that Primitive Baptists have departed from the London Confession and John Gill, which they certainly have clarified their position away from the means position since the time of that document and Dr. Gill.
However, Brother Garrett goes beyond the above criticism in the post he made on his blog here: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/jesus-uproots-hardshellism.html, and in a blog post he made on "Addresses to the lost".
Brother Garrett quoted John 10 below, then stated the paragraph following:
""But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you...If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10: 26, 37, 38)
These words of Jesus uproot Hardshellism. Jesus is clearly preaching to those who are not his sheep, not his elect, those who are not believers. Let the Hardshell come forward and deny these plain facts. Jesus is addressing a group who he says "are not of my sheep." That much is clear. But, the fact that they are not his sheep, are not believers, does not keep Christ from preaching to them. This in itself shows that Christ was no Hardshell, for Hardshells do not address those who are not Christ's sheep, believing that gospel preaching is only to be addressed to the sheep. Consider also the fact that Christ says to these "goats," these unregenerate souls, "believe the works that you may know and believe." If Christ commands the non-elect to "believe" on him, then is it not their duty to do so? How then can Hardshells deny that it is the duty of all to believe the truth about Christ? How can they deny that all men are responsible to believe in Christ?"
I know many Primitive Baptists, like Elder Allen Daniels of OKC (I visited with him recently), who believe that all men, including the non-elect, have a duty to believe the gospel. Having a duty to believe is a separate issue from being able to believe. When Primitive Baptists make the claim that the gospel is for the sheep, what they are saying is that, in the final analysis, only the regenerate sheep will rejoice in it, they are not saying that it should not be preached wherever there is opportunity and the Lord leads. All Primitive Baptists that I know of, except for a radical minority, take this view.
Besides this, it is plain that the gospel has purpose to the non-elect anyway; albeit not positive purpose, but it does reinforce their duty before God. Every PB I have had opportunity to converse with agrees with me during the course of our conversation. I find in 1 Peter 4:6, that the gospel was with cause preached to the spiritually dead non-elect that they might be judged by Him who judges the quick and the dead (vs. 5).
One has but to read Paul's idea of the natural man "treasuring up wrath against that day of wrath" in Romans 2 to see that all the disobedience of the children of wrath will be returned again to them on judgment day when they are judged by their works.
Mark 16:16 speaks of damnation upon gospel rejection, and 2 Thess. 1:7-9 can be seen as the divine response to opposition to the church and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Add on to all of this that Primitive Baptists must logically concede that they do not know the elect from the non-elect, which, consequently, means they will inevitably preach to at least some who are damned. So, obviously, if it was not God's will that the non-elect hear the gospel, God failed to give gospel ministers key information to keep that eventuality from occurring, as even within the PB Church there could appear one of the devils making.
Finally, the manifest absurdity of such a position that Brother Garrett ascribes to "all PB's" is that the radicals that take this view also believe that most of the world is made up of regenerate children of God anyway! So, obviously, what would be the harm of getting on the street corner? The probability is quite high that a disobedient child of God is within earshot.
Now, Brother Garrett also claims that regeneration is "ordinarily" effected through the gospel, so he also disagrees with Primitive Baptists in the utility of the gospel to the elect. It is on this point that he will argue that Primitive Baptists have departed from the London Confession and John Gill, which they certainly have clarified their position away from the means position since the time of that document and Dr. Gill.
However, Brother Garrett goes beyond the above criticism in the post he made on his blog here: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/jesus-uproots-hardshellism.html, and in a blog post he made on "Addresses to the lost".
Brother Garrett quoted John 10 below, then stated the paragraph following:
""But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you...If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10: 26, 37, 38)
These words of Jesus uproot Hardshellism. Jesus is clearly preaching to those who are not his sheep, not his elect, those who are not believers. Let the Hardshell come forward and deny these plain facts. Jesus is addressing a group who he says "are not of my sheep." That much is clear. But, the fact that they are not his sheep, are not believers, does not keep Christ from preaching to them. This in itself shows that Christ was no Hardshell, for Hardshells do not address those who are not Christ's sheep, believing that gospel preaching is only to be addressed to the sheep. Consider also the fact that Christ says to these "goats," these unregenerate souls, "believe the works that you may know and believe." If Christ commands the non-elect to "believe" on him, then is it not their duty to do so? How then can Hardshells deny that it is the duty of all to believe the truth about Christ? How can they deny that all men are responsible to believe in Christ?"
I know many Primitive Baptists, like Elder Allen Daniels of OKC (I visited with him recently), who believe that all men, including the non-elect, have a duty to believe the gospel. Having a duty to believe is a separate issue from being able to believe. When Primitive Baptists make the claim that the gospel is for the sheep, what they are saying is that, in the final analysis, only the regenerate sheep will rejoice in it, they are not saying that it should not be preached wherever there is opportunity and the Lord leads. All Primitive Baptists that I know of, except for a radical minority, take this view.
Besides this, it is plain that the gospel has purpose to the non-elect anyway; albeit not positive purpose, but it does reinforce their duty before God. Every PB I have had opportunity to converse with agrees with me during the course of our conversation. I find in 1 Peter 4:6, that the gospel was with cause preached to the spiritually dead non-elect that they might be judged by Him who judges the quick and the dead (vs. 5).
One has but to read Paul's idea of the natural man "treasuring up wrath against that day of wrath" in Romans 2 to see that all the disobedience of the children of wrath will be returned again to them on judgment day when they are judged by their works.
Mark 16:16 speaks of damnation upon gospel rejection, and 2 Thess. 1:7-9 can be seen as the divine response to opposition to the church and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Add on to all of this that Primitive Baptists must logically concede that they do not know the elect from the non-elect, which, consequently, means they will inevitably preach to at least some who are damned. So, obviously, if it was not God's will that the non-elect hear the gospel, God failed to give gospel ministers key information to keep that eventuality from occurring, as even within the PB Church there could appear one of the devils making.
Finally, the manifest absurdity of such a position that Brother Garrett ascribes to "all PB's" is that the radicals that take this view also believe that most of the world is made up of regenerate children of God anyway! So, obviously, what would be the harm of getting on the street corner? The probability is quite high that a disobedient child of God is within earshot.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The Real Genesis of American Modern Missions
I found the following quote from Elder Sylvester Hassell on Elder David Montgomery's website: (http://primitivebaptist.info/mambo//content/view/974/36/)
"The Gospel Messenger--1911
The above is the title of a book of 229 pages written by “B. H. Carroll, Jr., B. A., LL.B., Th.D.”, of Texas, and published by The Baptist Book Concern, 642 Fourth Avenue, Louisville, Ky., and sent by mail, postpaid, for one dollar.
A more correct title of the book would be “The Real Genesis of American Modern Missions, and the Imaginary Genesis of American Anti-Modern-Missionism.” More than one-third of the book (84 pages) is devoted to the history and glorification of American Modern-Missionisrn among the Baptists. Mr. Carroll truthfully says that William Carey, of England, was the father of American as well as English missions; and that Luther Rice and Adoniram Judson, Jr., were the real or direct awakeners of the American Baptists to missionary activity. He might also have said, with truth, as the Circular Letter of 1806 of the Philadelphia Association said—“In modern missions papal Rome led the way.” He does indeed intimate this important fact on the 94th page of his book, when he says: “Reformers have never been missionaries, nor the reforming ages periods of missionary activity in the church. This was true of the Roman church. For three hundred years, while the reformers were trying by means of councils to cleanse the church in head and members, there was no missionary activity. Not until after the Reformation, when the Council of Trent had finally put a quietus on the reform movements did Roman missionary activity begin. The same was true of the Protestant churches. As long as Europe was filled with the jangling of their warring creeds, missionary effort, though feebly attempted a few times, miserably failed. But in the fullness of time when religious opinions had all clarified and crystallized into settled creeds, Carey arose to set the Christian world on fire with missionary enthusiasm.” Of course if, as admitted by their most zealous and best informed advocates, Modern Money-based missions originated with the Roman Catholics in the 17th century (Pope Gregory XV. in 1622) and with William Carey of England in the 18th century (1792), they did not originate with the prophets or Christ or His apostles in the ages of perfect and infallible Divine inspiration., and they were even unknown in the church of more than fifteen hundred years after the last apostle died. But there is nothing new in all this—these facts have been well known to informed men for more than a hundred years. If the Scriptures do not authorize Modern Money-Based Missions to a reverent believer in the scriptures who regards them as the only infallible standard of faith and practice there would seem to be no use or very little use for the remainder of Mr. Carroll’s book."
The Philadelphia Association certainly evidenced dislike of Carey's missions, apparently.
"The Gospel Messenger--1911
The above is the title of a book of 229 pages written by “B. H. Carroll, Jr., B. A., LL.B., Th.D.”, of Texas, and published by The Baptist Book Concern, 642 Fourth Avenue, Louisville, Ky., and sent by mail, postpaid, for one dollar.
The Philadelphia Association certainly evidenced dislike of Carey's missions, apparently.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
The Sculptor's Hammer
I have started a new blog to address certain doctrinal views of some Primitive Baptist ministers, for any who are interested.
http://sculptorshammer.blogspot.com/
http://sculptorshammer.blogspot.com/
Friday, April 20, 2012
They Shall All Know Me
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-on-ii-tim-2.html
I stated previously:
"The mere possibility of this reality (however short a duration of deception) is enough to prove it is erroneous to make intellectual apprehension of the doctrine and knowledge of the gospel synonymous with Biblical faith."
Brother Garrett responded:
"Another non-sequiter. Yes, "short duration of deception" on some points of Christian doctrine may be the experience of true believers, but they cannot be deceived about Christ being Lord and Savior. Jesus taught that the elect could not be deceived in those things that are fundamental to saving faith. (Matt. 24: 24) Further, salvation is not based upon having perfect faith and understanding!"
These comments were made in a discussion over 2 Timothy 2. Brother Garrett agreed that true faith embraces the fundamental truth of revelation that Jesus is the Christ, but that those possessing this faith can, nevertheless, be in error on Christian doctrine.
In this, he differs with Curt Wildy (whose posts on the Primitive Baptists we discussed a couple of posts ago).
By this agreement, however, it is apparent that Brother Garrett distinguishes regeneration from conversion, as Peter was still in need of conversion to discipleship in Luke 22.
In this way, knowledge is distinct from faith. Now, Brother Garrett and I disagree about the knowledge embraced by the faith of the elect in regeneration. He insists on this knowledge being knowledge of Christ, and if he means an intimate perception of Christ and of God, I would agree. But, if he means a knowledge of Christ in terms of propositions about Christ like we have in the gospel, I must disagree, as this kind of knowledge requires a level of cognition that cannot be universally applied to all of the elect.
I believe that Brother Garrett believes the preached gospel is this intimate perception and experience of God and Christ. However, the medium of propositions of language in which the gospel is declared cannot logically be insisted on as an essential prerequisite of meeting Christ.
Now, Brother Garrett allows that Christ and God have "preached" the gospel directly to Old Testament saints, yet he still insists that this was done in propositional form, conveying knowledge that was the object of the faith of Old Testament saints, like Abraham. In Abraham's case, it is true that the gospel delivered to him was in propositions, but the gospel was not of the explicitly revealed Christ according to the Scripture, though the Angel of the Lord preaching to him was Christ.
Christ in the Old Testament would not give his name when asked, but insisted that it was a secret and too wonderful to be revealed. The propositional knowledge that their faith embraced was obscure, but the perception and experience of Yahweh, which is the fundamental knowledge that is the basis of faith, was as knowledgeable as the faith of NT believers. It is in this manner that Jesus' words to Thomas can be understood, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed (John 20:29)."
Though the specifics of redemption were hidden, Old Testament believers that had perceived the loveliness of Yahweh and of His Word in regeneration were faithful.
When Primitive Baptists exegete Hebrews 8:8-13, Brother Garrett has mocked and scoffed at the implications of contrasting the teaching of men under the old covenant with the direct teaching of the Father under the new covenant of verse 11.
The question must be asked, what does it mean to know the Father? Surely "know" is being used as Christ used it in Matt. 7:22 where he will say to the wicked at the last day, "I never knew you". This kind of knowing is not simply being cognizant of God's existence and righteousness, for that was known intellectually under the old covenant. This knowledge is the intimate knowledge like married couples have, a kind of knowledge that was impossible to obtain under the law. I point out as well, that THEY ALL shall KNOW from the LEAST to the greatest. This certainly must include the elect infant.
So whatever "knowing" is being done, is also done by them. Obviously, a limitation of a propositional knowledge of the gospel like adults have is precluded. Such a view of the knowledge under consideration is also not germane to the new covenant. Brother Garrett is running around as a "soul winner" under the old covenant, commanding men everywhere to know the Lord, but the elect will all know the Lord from God Himself, not from man - the text clearly states that.
What is it that they are all taught by God? As in John 6:45, every man that comes to the gospel of Christ hath learned and hath been taught of the Father. They are not taught by coming, they come because they are taught. All the elect are taught of God how they should love one another. The law of God, written in their hearts and minds, is His righteousness - the purpose of the law, not the propositions of the gospel, which would just be substituting a new law. God's righteousness, which the works of the law could never obtain, is written in the hearts and minds of all the elect when they are regenerated and the principle of grace is imparted.
I stated previously:
"The mere possibility of this reality (however short a duration of deception) is enough to prove it is erroneous to make intellectual apprehension of the doctrine and knowledge of the gospel synonymous with Biblical faith."
Brother Garrett responded:
"Another non-sequiter. Yes, "short duration of deception" on some points of Christian doctrine may be the experience of true believers, but they cannot be deceived about Christ being Lord and Savior. Jesus taught that the elect could not be deceived in those things that are fundamental to saving faith. (Matt. 24: 24) Further, salvation is not based upon having perfect faith and understanding!"
These comments were made in a discussion over 2 Timothy 2. Brother Garrett agreed that true faith embraces the fundamental truth of revelation that Jesus is the Christ, but that those possessing this faith can, nevertheless, be in error on Christian doctrine.
In this, he differs with Curt Wildy (whose posts on the Primitive Baptists we discussed a couple of posts ago).
By this agreement, however, it is apparent that Brother Garrett distinguishes regeneration from conversion, as Peter was still in need of conversion to discipleship in Luke 22.
In this way, knowledge is distinct from faith. Now, Brother Garrett and I disagree about the knowledge embraced by the faith of the elect in regeneration. He insists on this knowledge being knowledge of Christ, and if he means an intimate perception of Christ and of God, I would agree. But, if he means a knowledge of Christ in terms of propositions about Christ like we have in the gospel, I must disagree, as this kind of knowledge requires a level of cognition that cannot be universally applied to all of the elect.
I believe that Brother Garrett believes the preached gospel is this intimate perception and experience of God and Christ. However, the medium of propositions of language in which the gospel is declared cannot logically be insisted on as an essential prerequisite of meeting Christ.
Now, Brother Garrett allows that Christ and God have "preached" the gospel directly to Old Testament saints, yet he still insists that this was done in propositional form, conveying knowledge that was the object of the faith of Old Testament saints, like Abraham. In Abraham's case, it is true that the gospel delivered to him was in propositions, but the gospel was not of the explicitly revealed Christ according to the Scripture, though the Angel of the Lord preaching to him was Christ.
Christ in the Old Testament would not give his name when asked, but insisted that it was a secret and too wonderful to be revealed. The propositional knowledge that their faith embraced was obscure, but the perception and experience of Yahweh, which is the fundamental knowledge that is the basis of faith, was as knowledgeable as the faith of NT believers. It is in this manner that Jesus' words to Thomas can be understood, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed (John 20:29)."
Though the specifics of redemption were hidden, Old Testament believers that had perceived the loveliness of Yahweh and of His Word in regeneration were faithful.
When Primitive Baptists exegete Hebrews 8:8-13, Brother Garrett has mocked and scoffed at the implications of contrasting the teaching of men under the old covenant with the direct teaching of the Father under the new covenant of verse 11.
The question must be asked, what does it mean to know the Father? Surely "know" is being used as Christ used it in Matt. 7:22 where he will say to the wicked at the last day, "I never knew you". This kind of knowing is not simply being cognizant of God's existence and righteousness, for that was known intellectually under the old covenant. This knowledge is the intimate knowledge like married couples have, a kind of knowledge that was impossible to obtain under the law. I point out as well, that THEY ALL shall KNOW from the LEAST to the greatest. This certainly must include the elect infant.
So whatever "knowing" is being done, is also done by them. Obviously, a limitation of a propositional knowledge of the gospel like adults have is precluded. Such a view of the knowledge under consideration is also not germane to the new covenant. Brother Garrett is running around as a "soul winner" under the old covenant, commanding men everywhere to know the Lord, but the elect will all know the Lord from God Himself, not from man - the text clearly states that.
What is it that they are all taught by God? As in John 6:45, every man that comes to the gospel of Christ hath learned and hath been taught of the Father. They are not taught by coming, they come because they are taught. All the elect are taught of God how they should love one another. The law of God, written in their hearts and minds, is His righteousness - the purpose of the law, not the propositions of the gospel, which would just be substituting a new law. God's righteousness, which the works of the law could never obtain, is written in the hearts and minds of all the elect when they are regenerated and the principle of grace is imparted.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Knowledge Of Faith In Regeneration
Reference: http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2010/05/hardshell-david-pyles.html
Brother Garrett stated on his "BaptistGadfly" blog in which he critiqued David Pyles' "Extent of the Gospel":
"This question - "will all the elect hear and believe the gospel?" - Is similar to another question being debated, once again, by today's Hardshells - "Is there any truth knowledge given in the new birth?"
These questions are tough nuts for Hardshells. They do not believe that gospel truth, or knowledge about Christ, is part of that "revelation" given in the new birth. So, what knowledge is given when one is born again, according to Hardshellism? Most will affirm that it is a knowledge of sin andguilt before God. But, there is a problem here for them. Ask them "what God?" Sin against Allah? Against the Hindu elephant god? Against Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva? Also, if conviction knowledge is part of the new birth,does the infant in the womb become convicted of sin, and penitent, when it is supposedly regenerated? If "revelation" is part of the new birth, then does the infant possess this revelation?"
There is no difficulty for Primitive Baptists on the question of the content of the faith or the principle of grace imparted at regeneration.
The difficulty Brother Garrett foresees is in terms of propositional knowledge. Brother Garrett seems to presuppose here and in many of his blogs that saving faith requires complex, propositional knowledge to be considered knowledge. It is understandable that he would presume such, as the Westminster Confession of faith (which heavily influenced the LCF), is couched in Enlightenment, Lockean standards of knowledge.
There is no reason to think that the faith given in regeneration is non-cognitive simply because it does not embrace propositions.
Alvin Plantinga states in, "Warrant and Proper Function" (pg. 95), "According to the classical foundationalist, my perceptual belief has warrant only if it is accepted on the basis of beliefs about my experience, and only if those beliefs support it - deductively (as Descartes thought) or, more moderately, inductively (with Locke) or, still more moderately, abductively, with Peirce and others. But (Thomas-JB) Reid's claim here - correct as I see it - is that the belief can perfectly well have warrant even if it is not accepted on the basis of other beliefs at all; it can have warrant even if it is taken in the basic way. Furthermore, this belief can have warrant for me - even very high degrees of warrant - whether or not it is evidentially supported by propositions about my immediate experience."
Plantinga argues that perceptual beliefs count as knowledge. Infants and the mentally handicapped certainly can be thought to possess petite perceptions, no matter how rudimentary. When they are regenerated and the effects of sin repaired, there is no reason to suppose that they do not perceive the spirit of God and exercise some form of petite faith, according to the principle of grace implanted.
Certainly they could hardly be said to embrace the knowledge of God in the same way that a mentally competent person embraces the knowledge of God in the gospel. However, the way I have explained here illustrates where Garrett errs in considering that John the Baptist embraced the full content of the New Testament gospel. John the Baptist's reaction in leaping for joy in the womb was a rudimentary, petite, and perceptual faith formed in the event of coming "womb to womb" with the Son of God.
There is no indication in the text that John the Baptist understood the propositional knowledge contained in the gospel; indeed such a view is absurd. But it is also not the case that John the Baptist's infantile faith had no knowledge as it's object because the perception of the being of Christ was the object of his faith - the Holy Spirit bearing witness.
Brother Garrett's objection above to the knowledge of God theorized by PB's in the regenerate heathen is a non sequitur. If such heathen were regenerate, their proper functioning faculties regenerated from the ill effects of sin would not spiritually perceive God in the worship of idols. In fact, Paul proves in Romans 1 that unregenerate pagan people know enough about the Godhead from nature to know that God is not a four-footed beast or creeping thing. How much less would regenerate but unevangelized people engage in gross idolatry and homosexuality?
There is no certain reason that is not some degree of conjecture, however, to suppose that the unevangelized are regenerate any more than that they are damned, just as there is no compelling, logical reason to suppose that all infants are elect. I believe that it is the will of God that the gospel be preached to every new creature, and since we do not know who the elect are, the gospel should be preached anywhere and everywhere there is opportunity.
On the most basic level, there is no reason to view the faith exercised immediately in regeneration to be anything other than a spiritual, perceptual trust in God according to the sensus divinitatis. After the noetic effects of sin have been repaired, faith immediately embraces man's innate knowledge of God and all natural revelation, as that knowledge is the most proximate to man. This knowledge is then expanded by any special revelation available by the power of the Spirit. Even if men are under the sound of the preached gospel, logically this transition would take place.
I am not saying by this that Paul should in any way be read in Romans chapter 1 as teaching that men outside of special revelation are regenerated. What I am saying is that when regeneration does occur, Paul proves in Romans 1:20 that there is a fundamental knowledge of God that all men have by virtue of being created in His image, and that that which is known of God by nature is embraced immediately in faith. The innate sensus divinitatis is the content of the principle of grace given to all in regeneration.
Brother Garrett stated on his "BaptistGadfly" blog in which he critiqued David Pyles' "Extent of the Gospel":
"This question - "will all the elect hear and believe the gospel?" - Is similar to another question being debated, once again, by today's Hardshells - "Is there any truth knowledge given in the new birth?"
These questions are tough nuts for Hardshells. They do not believe that gospel truth, or knowledge about Christ, is part of that "revelation" given in the new birth. So, what knowledge is given when one is born again, according to Hardshellism? Most will affirm that it is a knowledge of sin andguilt before God. But, there is a problem here for them. Ask them "what God?" Sin against Allah? Against the Hindu elephant god? Against Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva? Also, if conviction knowledge is part of the new birth,does the infant in the womb become convicted of sin, and penitent, when it is supposedly regenerated? If "revelation" is part of the new birth, then does the infant possess this revelation?"
There is no difficulty for Primitive Baptists on the question of the content of the faith or the principle of grace imparted at regeneration.
The difficulty Brother Garrett foresees is in terms of propositional knowledge. Brother Garrett seems to presuppose here and in many of his blogs that saving faith requires complex, propositional knowledge to be considered knowledge. It is understandable that he would presume such, as the Westminster Confession of faith (which heavily influenced the LCF), is couched in Enlightenment, Lockean standards of knowledge.
There is no reason to think that the faith given in regeneration is non-cognitive simply because it does not embrace propositions.
Alvin Plantinga states in, "Warrant and Proper Function" (pg. 95), "According to the classical foundationalist, my perceptual belief has warrant only if it is accepted on the basis of beliefs about my experience, and only if those beliefs support it - deductively (as Descartes thought) or, more moderately, inductively (with Locke) or, still more moderately, abductively, with Peirce and others. But (Thomas-JB) Reid's claim here - correct as I see it - is that the belief can perfectly well have warrant even if it is not accepted on the basis of other beliefs at all; it can have warrant even if it is taken in the basic way. Furthermore, this belief can have warrant for me - even very high degrees of warrant - whether or not it is evidentially supported by propositions about my immediate experience."
Plantinga argues that perceptual beliefs count as knowledge. Infants and the mentally handicapped certainly can be thought to possess petite perceptions, no matter how rudimentary. When they are regenerated and the effects of sin repaired, there is no reason to suppose that they do not perceive the spirit of God and exercise some form of petite faith, according to the principle of grace implanted.
Certainly they could hardly be said to embrace the knowledge of God in the same way that a mentally competent person embraces the knowledge of God in the gospel. However, the way I have explained here illustrates where Garrett errs in considering that John the Baptist embraced the full content of the New Testament gospel. John the Baptist's reaction in leaping for joy in the womb was a rudimentary, petite, and perceptual faith formed in the event of coming "womb to womb" with the Son of God.
There is no indication in the text that John the Baptist understood the propositional knowledge contained in the gospel; indeed such a view is absurd. But it is also not the case that John the Baptist's infantile faith had no knowledge as it's object because the perception of the being of Christ was the object of his faith - the Holy Spirit bearing witness.
Brother Garrett's objection above to the knowledge of God theorized by PB's in the regenerate heathen is a non sequitur. If such heathen were regenerate, their proper functioning faculties regenerated from the ill effects of sin would not spiritually perceive God in the worship of idols. In fact, Paul proves in Romans 1 that unregenerate pagan people know enough about the Godhead from nature to know that God is not a four-footed beast or creeping thing. How much less would regenerate but unevangelized people engage in gross idolatry and homosexuality?
There is no certain reason that is not some degree of conjecture, however, to suppose that the unevangelized are regenerate any more than that they are damned, just as there is no compelling, logical reason to suppose that all infants are elect. I believe that it is the will of God that the gospel be preached to every new creature, and since we do not know who the elect are, the gospel should be preached anywhere and everywhere there is opportunity.
On the most basic level, there is no reason to view the faith exercised immediately in regeneration to be anything other than a spiritual, perceptual trust in God according to the sensus divinitatis. After the noetic effects of sin have been repaired, faith immediately embraces man's innate knowledge of God and all natural revelation, as that knowledge is the most proximate to man. This knowledge is then expanded by any special revelation available by the power of the Spirit. Even if men are under the sound of the preached gospel, logically this transition would take place.
I am not saying by this that Paul should in any way be read in Romans chapter 1 as teaching that men outside of special revelation are regenerated. What I am saying is that when regeneration does occur, Paul proves in Romans 1:20 that there is a fundamental knowledge of God that all men have by virtue of being created in His image, and that that which is known of God by nature is embraced immediately in faith. The innate sensus divinitatis is the content of the principle of grace given to all in regeneration.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Fralick's Article Recommendation
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/article-recommendation.html
Brother Fralick stated:
"Curt Wildy, who manages a blog called Look Unto the Lord, has written a 3-part series entitled “Will All Of The Elect Hear and Believe the Gospel”? All "Primitive Baptists" not only should read what we write here on the "Old Baptist" blog but also such articles as those written by Brother Wildy.
Will All Of The Elect Hear and Believe the Gospel? - PART ONE
Will All Of The Elect Hear and Believe the Gospel? - PART TWO
Will All Of The Elect Hear and Believe the Gospel? - PART THREE "
I do appreciate and commend Curt Wildy's writing in many respects. He is a clear, logical writer that does not distract the reader with needless emotional rhetoric.
His central point in his posts on the Primitive Baptists I can agree with in spirit in that the way that many Primitive Baptists separate conversion from regeneration in the New Testament is unjustified in that they argue that some degree of gospel conversion, when exposed to it, is actually not consistent with regeneration.
I want to distill two points from his writings, linked in the above quotation from Brother Fralick, that I think demonstrate where his refutation fails.
Brother Curt Wildy states in Part Two of his writing:
"Looking forward to Part Three of this series, it is especially essential to note that the Bible is clear that Old Testament believers truly believed the Gospel; it is perhaps this truth that most severely undermines many of the objections put forth by those Primitive Baptists who hold to the Regeneration without Gospel Conversion error."
I agree that this point is essential. If it could be demonstrated that OT believers embraced the same knowledge or content of the gospel as NT believers, it would undermine much of the logical basis to distinguish knowledge from faith or conversion from regeneration, especially as he argues that infants and those that have been mentally incompetent since birth are all of the elect.
One wonders, as an aside, with such a position on those subjects, and his belief that regeneration always occurs in a context of gospel preaching, why he insists that regeneration logically precedes conversion. If he grants all of this, he would seem to be at a disadvantage to argue, for example, with Brother Steven Garrett that regeneration is not effected by means of the gospel.
Brother Curt Wildy stated in Part 3 of his writing:
"However, I absolutely maintain that regeneration is accompanied by belief in the Gospel truth; we are regenerated unto belief in the truth. To properly understand this, we must keep in mind that the Old Testament saints believed the exact same Gospel that true Christians believe today. The only difference, if you want to call it a difference, lies in the degree of detail. Nonetheless, all Old Testament believers knew the LORD to be their Righteousness and awaited a Messiah to come who would propitiate for them. If we understand this, we will understand the discussion below when we get to the matter of “ignorantly worshiping God.”"
The point is, however, that NT believers had the historical Jesus Christ as the object of their faith, OT believers had Jehovah as the object of their faith. This difference in the degree of content is enough to prove that true faith, which was had by OT believers, did not have the explicitly revealed Christ as it's object.
The point of this is not to surmise that true faith can be possessed outside of embracing Jesus Christ on some level in this gospel era to those under the sound of the gospel. This would be an irrational conclusion because examples of faith of believers in the OT did not have that revelation available, but they embraced in faith what revelation was extant.
The point of noting the difference is that Paul's use of justifying faith in Romans 4:16 must apply in a common sense to all of the elect across the ages. Surely one can see the consistency of inferring a "measure of faith" that is common to all the seed on a fundamental level from this text. This same "measure of faith" is given to the elect in regeneration to the infant as well as the educated man, and immediately applies the righteousness of Christ to them. This fundamental "measure of faith" is a principle of grace (this principle undergirds and manifests iteself in evangelical faith) that is God's means of preserving the elect unto salvation, ready to be revealed at the last time (1 Peter 1:5).
This text clearly denies a standard of knowledge for justifying faith as taught by Calvinism, as all the seed are incapable of passing that standard, and that the revelation of knowledge is properly conceived as belonging to conversion to those intellectually capable and exposed to such revelation.
This brings us to the second point I wish to distill from Brother Wildy's articles - the damnation of the Arminian, and those with impure views of the gospel. Brother Wildy argues that the true spirit of God sanctifies and converts the regenerate to the truth of the doctrines of grace. He denies that truly regenerate people are in any way ignorant of doctrinal truth - at least as it pertains to the doctrines of grace. I say, who then can be saved?
Even though one may be committed to the doctrines of grace, believing firmly in salvation by God's sovereign grace alone, is there anyone not guilty of sinning against the purity of the truth of this grace? What is anxiousness and fear for the things beyond our control in life, but a bold assertion of a fundamental trust in ourselves against the sovereignty of God? It is ridiculous to argue that regenerate children of God cannot err from the doctrines of grace.
Perhaps anyone fearing or overly anxious are unregenerate as well; I say again, who then can be saved?
Brother Wildy emphasizes that though the unregenerate elect may have impure views of the gospel, it is not proper to conceive of them as regenerate in error.
As I have argued with Brother Steven Garrett, Peter's denial of Christ certainly proves that regenerate children of God can behave contrary to their intellectual belief. It is certainly possible, therefore, that regenerate children of God can believe that they are saved sola gratia, and not recognize the inconsistency of this with their insistence that a man must exercise faith to receive this grace, as Peter confessed Christ in Matt. 16:16 yet denied the logical implications of this confession by trying to talk Christ out of being Savior in Matt. 16:22.
Again, as I have argued with Brother Garrett, 2 Timothy 2:13,18,19,25,26 all imply that actual regenerate children of God can be in doctrinal error. Verse 19 is posed in a context of doctrinal unbelief of those in verse 18. If Paul was certain that they were damned he would have said so; instead, he affirms the security of the elect in God's knowledge. He exhorts that those who name the name of Christ depart from iniquity, not that those who are of Christ will so depart or will not err. If Paul was certain that the regenerate could not be in error, he would not have placed obedience contingent on the profession of Christ; he would have placed obedience contingent on actually being in Christ.
Verse 25 proves that regenerate children of God can possibly be in doctrinal error. Paul allows that God can give repentance to the acknowledgement of truth. Obviously, if they were not at one time acknowledging the truth in sincerity, it would be pointless to repent to an insincere acknowledgement of the truth.
Lastly, as also discussed with Brother Garrett, Luke 11:52 and Matt. 23:13 prove that regenerate children of God can be hindered in conversion and belief in the gospel. Surely Brother Wildy could not conceive that they could be hindered in regeneration?
Brother Fralick stated:
"Curt Wildy, who manages a blog called Look Unto the Lord, has written a 3-part series entitled “Will All Of The Elect Hear and Believe the Gospel”? All "Primitive Baptists" not only should read what we write here on the "Old Baptist" blog but also such articles as those written by Brother Wildy.
Will All Of The Elect Hear and Believe the Gospel? - PART ONE
Will All Of The Elect Hear and Believe the Gospel? - PART TWO
Will All Of The Elect Hear and Believe the Gospel? - PART THREE "
I do appreciate and commend Curt Wildy's writing in many respects. He is a clear, logical writer that does not distract the reader with needless emotional rhetoric.
His central point in his posts on the Primitive Baptists I can agree with in spirit in that the way that many Primitive Baptists separate conversion from regeneration in the New Testament is unjustified in that they argue that some degree of gospel conversion, when exposed to it, is actually not consistent with regeneration.
I want to distill two points from his writings, linked in the above quotation from Brother Fralick, that I think demonstrate where his refutation fails.
Brother Curt Wildy states in Part Two of his writing:
"Looking forward to Part Three of this series, it is especially essential to note that the Bible is clear that Old Testament believers truly believed the Gospel; it is perhaps this truth that most severely undermines many of the objections put forth by those Primitive Baptists who hold to the Regeneration without Gospel Conversion error."
I agree that this point is essential. If it could be demonstrated that OT believers embraced the same knowledge or content of the gospel as NT believers, it would undermine much of the logical basis to distinguish knowledge from faith or conversion from regeneration, especially as he argues that infants and those that have been mentally incompetent since birth are all of the elect.
One wonders, as an aside, with such a position on those subjects, and his belief that regeneration always occurs in a context of gospel preaching, why he insists that regeneration logically precedes conversion. If he grants all of this, he would seem to be at a disadvantage to argue, for example, with Brother Steven Garrett that regeneration is not effected by means of the gospel.
Brother Curt Wildy stated in Part 3 of his writing:
"However, I absolutely maintain that regeneration is accompanied by belief in the Gospel truth; we are regenerated unto belief in the truth. To properly understand this, we must keep in mind that the Old Testament saints believed the exact same Gospel that true Christians believe today. The only difference, if you want to call it a difference, lies in the degree of detail. Nonetheless, all Old Testament believers knew the LORD to be their Righteousness and awaited a Messiah to come who would propitiate for them. If we understand this, we will understand the discussion below when we get to the matter of “ignorantly worshiping God.”"
The point is, however, that NT believers had the historical Jesus Christ as the object of their faith, OT believers had Jehovah as the object of their faith. This difference in the degree of content is enough to prove that true faith, which was had by OT believers, did not have the explicitly revealed Christ as it's object.
The point of this is not to surmise that true faith can be possessed outside of embracing Jesus Christ on some level in this gospel era to those under the sound of the gospel. This would be an irrational conclusion because examples of faith of believers in the OT did not have that revelation available, but they embraced in faith what revelation was extant.
The point of noting the difference is that Paul's use of justifying faith in Romans 4:16 must apply in a common sense to all of the elect across the ages. Surely one can see the consistency of inferring a "measure of faith" that is common to all the seed on a fundamental level from this text. This same "measure of faith" is given to the elect in regeneration to the infant as well as the educated man, and immediately applies the righteousness of Christ to them. This fundamental "measure of faith" is a principle of grace (this principle undergirds and manifests iteself in evangelical faith) that is God's means of preserving the elect unto salvation, ready to be revealed at the last time (1 Peter 1:5).
This text clearly denies a standard of knowledge for justifying faith as taught by Calvinism, as all the seed are incapable of passing that standard, and that the revelation of knowledge is properly conceived as belonging to conversion to those intellectually capable and exposed to such revelation.
This brings us to the second point I wish to distill from Brother Wildy's articles - the damnation of the Arminian, and those with impure views of the gospel. Brother Wildy argues that the true spirit of God sanctifies and converts the regenerate to the truth of the doctrines of grace. He denies that truly regenerate people are in any way ignorant of doctrinal truth - at least as it pertains to the doctrines of grace. I say, who then can be saved?
Even though one may be committed to the doctrines of grace, believing firmly in salvation by God's sovereign grace alone, is there anyone not guilty of sinning against the purity of the truth of this grace? What is anxiousness and fear for the things beyond our control in life, but a bold assertion of a fundamental trust in ourselves against the sovereignty of God? It is ridiculous to argue that regenerate children of God cannot err from the doctrines of grace.
Perhaps anyone fearing or overly anxious are unregenerate as well; I say again, who then can be saved?
Brother Wildy emphasizes that though the unregenerate elect may have impure views of the gospel, it is not proper to conceive of them as regenerate in error.
As I have argued with Brother Steven Garrett, Peter's denial of Christ certainly proves that regenerate children of God can behave contrary to their intellectual belief. It is certainly possible, therefore, that regenerate children of God can believe that they are saved sola gratia, and not recognize the inconsistency of this with their insistence that a man must exercise faith to receive this grace, as Peter confessed Christ in Matt. 16:16 yet denied the logical implications of this confession by trying to talk Christ out of being Savior in Matt. 16:22.
Again, as I have argued with Brother Garrett, 2 Timothy 2:13,18,19,25,26 all imply that actual regenerate children of God can be in doctrinal error. Verse 19 is posed in a context of doctrinal unbelief of those in verse 18. If Paul was certain that they were damned he would have said so; instead, he affirms the security of the elect in God's knowledge. He exhorts that those who name the name of Christ depart from iniquity, not that those who are of Christ will so depart or will not err. If Paul was certain that the regenerate could not be in error, he would not have placed obedience contingent on the profession of Christ; he would have placed obedience contingent on actually being in Christ.
Verse 25 proves that regenerate children of God can possibly be in doctrinal error. Paul allows that God can give repentance to the acknowledgement of truth. Obviously, if they were not at one time acknowledging the truth in sincerity, it would be pointless to repent to an insincere acknowledgement of the truth.
Lastly, as also discussed with Brother Garrett, Luke 11:52 and Matt. 23:13 prove that regenerate children of God can be hindered in conversion and belief in the gospel. Surely Brother Wildy could not conceive that they could be hindered in regeneration?
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Garrett's Comments 04-12-12
This blog will respond to Garrett's Comments here: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/more-doublespeak.html, and here: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/jason-on-faith-of-elect.html.
Brother Garrett stated:
"There is really no need to disect the remarks of Jason as anyone can see that it is simply more doublespeak. The citations are very clear and yet Jason trys to make the citations to say what they do not say. Jason thinks that I need to travel among the Hardshells and see for myself how the Hardshells have changed since I was with them in the 80s. But, my dad is still a Hardshell and I know that Jason is wrong."
I simply suggested that many emphases of modern Primitive Baptists have to be clarified. It is not always clear what their position is. I have personally talked to many ministers with similar emphasis as Hagler or the Salem Association, and they do not mean to suggest that the regenerate elect have no spiritual reaction to the testimony of the spirit under the sound of the preached word. They are simply emphasizing that the faith exercised by the regenerate is variable in the exercise of it, not in the existence of it to any degree.
One person's testimony of what the PB's teach is a poor representative sample of the majority, especially if Brother Garrett's dad is not asking the right questions. If you ask general questions of the nature of the regenerate under the sound of the gospel, you will likely get answers that reflect the typical PB emphasis that distinguishes them among Christian denominations. I certainly question this emphasis and the manner in which it is often presented, but that is not to say that it is absent an element of truth.
Brother Garrett stated:
"But, I never affirmed that the revelation of the gospel that Abraham believed was as clear as that which is believed today. What I have affirmed, however, is that all the elect will be believe the gospel revelation to the degree that it is revealed. There is no difference, however, in the basic elements of the gospel message that was believed by OT believers and by today's NT believers."
Brother Garrett argues there is no difference in the basic elements of the gospel message that was believed by OT believers and by today's NT believers. In order to prove this, Brother Garrett would have to show that the content of Abraham's faith embraced the death, burial, and resurrection of the historical figure of Christ. Otherwise, the "basic element" of the gospel of the Old Testament becomes a general salvation promised by God.
There is no clear indication in the Old Testament of the precise manner in which God would save His people. There are hints and elements that prophecy of redemption through Christ, but the eunuch needed Philip to interpret Isaiah and apply it to the revealed Christ. By itself, the eunuch could not understand if Isaiah spoke of himself or another.
Brother Garrett stated:
""And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Gal. 3: 8)
"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." (Heb. 4: 2)
These verses say that the same gospel was preached to Abraham and to the Israelites that is today preached by ministers of the new testament. Jason can resist believing them, but we will accept them for what they say."
Galatians 3:8 says that God preached to Abraham before the gospel, it is illogical, therefore, to suppose that Paul equated what was before with what was presently. Also, if you equate what was preached to Abraham by God with the gospel, "In thee shall all nations be blessed" becomes the content of the gospel. Where is Christ revealed to Abraham explicitly in that?
As for Hebrews 4:2, Brother Garrett simply begs the question. "Gospel" simply means good news. This text does not indicate that New Testament doctrines of Christ were preached explicitly to OT Israel. In fact, the spiritual lesson is, that the Israelites refused to trust in God at the good news of the rest of God in Canaan being their inheritance, and, like them, the Hebrew audience is exhorted not to fall from the promised rest, which is the fulfillment of the type of Canaan in the OT, by unbelief.
This interpretation is clearly confirmed by Hebrews 4:8. The gospel of the rest of OT Israel was clearly not the eternal rest of God through Jesus Christ, but a rest in Canaan's land, which is a spiritual lesson for NT believers.
The idea that the revelation available in OT times had the same content as the gospel preached today is unsupported from both of these texts.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Let us ask Jason - "does a person have to believe the gospel to be saved?" I predict that Jason will not give us a straight anwer to this question, but will give us more doublespeak, saying, on one hand, that yes they do, and then saying, on the other hand, that no they do not."
If we define gospel as trust in God for salvation, then, yes, all the elect will trust in God and embrace any revelation available as a result of the effectual call.
Brother Garrett stated:
"There is really no need to disect the remarks of Jason as anyone can see that it is simply more doublespeak. The citations are very clear and yet Jason trys to make the citations to say what they do not say. Jason thinks that I need to travel among the Hardshells and see for myself how the Hardshells have changed since I was with them in the 80s. But, my dad is still a Hardshell and I know that Jason is wrong."
I simply suggested that many emphases of modern Primitive Baptists have to be clarified. It is not always clear what their position is. I have personally talked to many ministers with similar emphasis as Hagler or the Salem Association, and they do not mean to suggest that the regenerate elect have no spiritual reaction to the testimony of the spirit under the sound of the preached word. They are simply emphasizing that the faith exercised by the regenerate is variable in the exercise of it, not in the existence of it to any degree.
One person's testimony of what the PB's teach is a poor representative sample of the majority, especially if Brother Garrett's dad is not asking the right questions. If you ask general questions of the nature of the regenerate under the sound of the gospel, you will likely get answers that reflect the typical PB emphasis that distinguishes them among Christian denominations. I certainly question this emphasis and the manner in which it is often presented, but that is not to say that it is absent an element of truth.
Brother Garrett stated:
"But, I never affirmed that the revelation of the gospel that Abraham believed was as clear as that which is believed today. What I have affirmed, however, is that all the elect will be believe the gospel revelation to the degree that it is revealed. There is no difference, however, in the basic elements of the gospel message that was believed by OT believers and by today's NT believers."
Brother Garrett argues there is no difference in the basic elements of the gospel message that was believed by OT believers and by today's NT believers. In order to prove this, Brother Garrett would have to show that the content of Abraham's faith embraced the death, burial, and resurrection of the historical figure of Christ. Otherwise, the "basic element" of the gospel of the Old Testament becomes a general salvation promised by God.
There is no clear indication in the Old Testament of the precise manner in which God would save His people. There are hints and elements that prophecy of redemption through Christ, but the eunuch needed Philip to interpret Isaiah and apply it to the revealed Christ. By itself, the eunuch could not understand if Isaiah spoke of himself or another.
Brother Garrett stated:
""And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Gal. 3: 8)
"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." (Heb. 4: 2)
These verses say that the same gospel was preached to Abraham and to the Israelites that is today preached by ministers of the new testament. Jason can resist believing them, but we will accept them for what they say."
Galatians 3:8 says that God preached to Abraham before the gospel, it is illogical, therefore, to suppose that Paul equated what was before with what was presently. Also, if you equate what was preached to Abraham by God with the gospel, "In thee shall all nations be blessed" becomes the content of the gospel. Where is Christ revealed to Abraham explicitly in that?
As for Hebrews 4:2, Brother Garrett simply begs the question. "Gospel" simply means good news. This text does not indicate that New Testament doctrines of Christ were preached explicitly to OT Israel. In fact, the spiritual lesson is, that the Israelites refused to trust in God at the good news of the rest of God in Canaan being their inheritance, and, like them, the Hebrew audience is exhorted not to fall from the promised rest, which is the fulfillment of the type of Canaan in the OT, by unbelief.
This interpretation is clearly confirmed by Hebrews 4:8. The gospel of the rest of OT Israel was clearly not the eternal rest of God through Jesus Christ, but a rest in Canaan's land, which is a spiritual lesson for NT believers.
The idea that the revelation available in OT times had the same content as the gospel preached today is unsupported from both of these texts.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Let us ask Jason - "does a person have to believe the gospel to be saved?" I predict that Jason will not give us a straight anwer to this question, but will give us more doublespeak, saying, on one hand, that yes they do, and then saying, on the other hand, that no they do not."
If we define gospel as trust in God for salvation, then, yes, all the elect will trust in God and embrace any revelation available as a result of the effectual call.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Garrett on the Faith of God's Elect
Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/faith-of-gods-elect.html
Brother Garrett stated:
"We are glad that Jason affirms that "basic trust and faith in the revelation of God" is"common" to all the elect in their experience of being "conformed to the image of Christ." But, when he affirms that one can have biblical "faith" apart from what is revealed in scripture about God and his salvation through Christ, then he is teaching what is contrary to scripture, to the 1689 London Baptist Confession and Dr. Gill. Jason can hardly claim to be an "Old Baptist" when he goes against the above Baptist teaching."
If it is true that there is no difference in the knowledge that is the object of the faith of pre-gospel era individuals and those under the sound of the gospel, how does Brother Garrett interpret Hebrews 11:13 and 39,40? These texts make it obvious that the New Testament believer enjoys something the Old Testament believer did not enjoy; a sense in which those under the Old Covenant only saw the promises afar off in non-specific, Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament or general promises of God to justify the seed of Abraham by faith. They did not receive them in the same sense that gospel era believers have access to embrace and receive the promises in the revelation of Christ. Are they, therefore, unregenerate and eternally damned, Brother Garrett?
How do we make sense of all this if it is not the blessing of gospel revelation that was hidden from them but made manifest to the elect of the gospel era? This is surely proved by Paul in Ephes. 3:9 and by Matthew in Matt. 13:35.
Brother Garrett argues that the gospel was always manifest:
"Further, the good news concerning the Lord Jesus Christ has been published since the foundation of the world. Jesus said - "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8: 56) The ancient first sign of "Mazzaroth" (Job 38: 32) tells of the coming of the "seed of the woman" (the Virgin Maiden of Virgo). Virgo has in her right the Spica of Wheat or the Seed, and the brightest star in Virgo means "the seed." Jesus, when referring to his coming death, said to the Greeks - "except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone, but if it die, it brings forth much fruit." (John 12: 24) The Virgin in the constellation of Virgo also has in her left hand a "branch" and this is one of the most ancient names of the Messiah or "seed of the woman." (See Isa. 4: 2; 11: 1; Jer. 23: 5; 33: 15) The first Decan of the Virgo constellation is the sign of "Coma" and this word means "the Desired One," and which is also a title of Christ "the seed" in scripture. (See Haggai 2: 7; Dan. 11: 37) The other two Decans also testify of Christ, the divine seed who would be Reedemer, Judge, Shepherd, and both God and man. So, the gospel revelation is as old as the garden of Eden."
The defense he gives of the gospel of Jesus Christ being published since the foundation of the world entails general Messianic references in the Old Testament or in star constellations, not clear, specific data of Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament in terms of His death, burial, and resurrection. Surely any honest person should concede that signs in the stars are a poor substitute for the clarity of Paul's gospel.
To claim that the signs in the stars were equal in the degree of revelation as compared to the New Testament gospel is absurd. Signs are certainly subject to interpretation in a way that language is not. Brother Garrett is grasping at straws to substitute these signs for New Testament doctrines, as if they're equally revealing. There is plainly a difference in the degree of knowledge available, which is the only relevant point, let alone the passages I have referenced in Hebrews that mark a distinction of spiritual clarity.
Brother Garrett does not really address the issue by this argumentation, but only highlights the inconsistency of the degree of pre-gospel era revelation and the clearer revelation in the New Testament. While the revelation he points to in star constellations can certainly be seen as consistent with New Testament revelation, it can hardly be said to be as clear as that revealed in the New Testament. As signs that point to Christ, they are obscure enough to be considered "hidden" in the sense of Paul in Ephes. 3:9.
My argument has never been that the Old Testament or nature contain no signs or foreshadowing of Christ, but that the signs and promises of Christ are more obscure than New Testament revelation and knowledge. The faith of Old Testament saints certainly embraced this revelation, but their faith did not embrace the same content in degree of clarity as New Testament believers. This is pretty obvious, even by Brother Garrett's own arguments.
Also, the inconsistency of means in regeneration is noteworthy by comparison of the content of the revelation available. So, even for Brother Garrett who believes that special revelation is instrumental in regeneration, it wasn't the New Testament gospel as delivered exactly as Paul gave it in New Testament times that was the means by which God regenerated Abraham. Even Brother Garrett admits that Abraham was regenerated directly by God, and the knowledge that was the object of his faith was far less clear than the gospel knowledge that is the object of the faith of New Testament believers. Since Brother Garrett has to admit this for Old Testament believers like Abraham, why does he insist that God's effectual call is only by the gospel in New Testament times, since, even if God regenerated Abraham directly through the revelation God made available to him, that revelation was still not clearly the same extent of knowledge as New Testament believers enjoy?
John 6:45 evidences utter consistency with the teaching of the Father that is common to all the elect across the span of time. This direct teaching precedes - no matter how much time is considered - coming to revelation, whether nature's, Christ's, or the gospel as preached by man, by the use of the past tense in "hath heard" and "hath learned".
Brother Garrett stated:
"The Gospel is not the "only" revelation that can produce "the faith of God's elect"! The scriptures declare that there is no faith apart from hearing the gospel revelation -"Therefore faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) "
It depends on what Brother Garrett means by "gospel". The good news of Jesus Christ's birth, death, and resurrection specifically do not appear to be the object of Abraham's faith. From the Gen. 15 account, and the way in which Paul deals with Old Testament faith in Hebrews 11 and Galatians 3:8, I don't see how Brother Garrett can insist that Abraham's faith embraced Jesus Christ the same way that Paul's faith embraced Jesus Christ. Abraham trusted and believed God, not specifically the God-Man, Jesus Christ, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
Now, I think that the trust in God for Abraham was of the same intensity that Paul's trust that he (Paul) arose with Christ from the grave, but it was less informed - much like Isaac's implicit trust in Abraham in traveling up the hill to the altar. Did Abraham know how God would provide when he lifted his knife to the heavens with the full intent of plunging it in his son's exposed breast? Did Abraham know where God wanted him to go when God told him to leave Ur? Did God tell Abraham how he planned to make him a Father of many nations? Not according to the Genesis account he didn't. This ignorance is actually germane to the point of Abraham's example in the Bible.
Brother Garrett stated:
"The holy prophets "have been since the world began" and their message was a gospel message concerning salvation through Christ. Jason can claim that the gospel revelation is not the oldest revelation, but in this he is against the scriptures."
I'm not saying that prior revelation was fully separate from the gospel. It certainly foreshadowed the revelation of Jesus Christ, and I would argue that all revelation has been consistent, leading up to the fullness of gospel revelation. But to argue that it always has been as clear as it is in the present is ridiculous. If Brother Garrett was even remotely correct, you would expect to see the Old Testament as clear as the New Testament concerning all Christian doctrines. Was Augustine wrong to say that the New Testament was in the Old Testament concealed, and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed?
How can a rational person even begin to take the position that the prophets of the Old Testament preached a salvation through Christ with the same clarity that Paul did? I'm not saying by this that the revelation is not consistent, but types and shadows exist in the Old Testament that were not understood completely until the New Testament, which is likely at least part of Paul's reference in Ephesians 3:9.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Is the heathen who only has the light of nature and creation able to have "the faith of God's elect"? What saith the scripture? What saith the Old Baptists of ages past?"
I have never argued that men could be saved by natural revelation. All the elect are taught and learn of the Father directly in regeneration, and whatever revelation is available is then embraced by the faith given, conforming and sanctifying them to the image of Christ.
Brother Garrett stated:
"We are glad that Jason affirms that "basic trust and faith in the revelation of God" is"common" to all the elect in their experience of being "conformed to the image of Christ." But, when he affirms that one can have biblical "faith" apart from what is revealed in scripture about God and his salvation through Christ, then he is teaching what is contrary to scripture, to the 1689 London Baptist Confession and Dr. Gill. Jason can hardly claim to be an "Old Baptist" when he goes against the above Baptist teaching."
If it is true that there is no difference in the knowledge that is the object of the faith of pre-gospel era individuals and those under the sound of the gospel, how does Brother Garrett interpret Hebrews 11:13 and 39,40? These texts make it obvious that the New Testament believer enjoys something the Old Testament believer did not enjoy; a sense in which those under the Old Covenant only saw the promises afar off in non-specific, Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament or general promises of God to justify the seed of Abraham by faith. They did not receive them in the same sense that gospel era believers have access to embrace and receive the promises in the revelation of Christ. Are they, therefore, unregenerate and eternally damned, Brother Garrett?
How do we make sense of all this if it is not the blessing of gospel revelation that was hidden from them but made manifest to the elect of the gospel era? This is surely proved by Paul in Ephes. 3:9 and by Matthew in Matt. 13:35.
Brother Garrett argues that the gospel was always manifest:
"Further, the good news concerning the Lord Jesus Christ has been published since the foundation of the world. Jesus said - "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad." (John 8: 56) The ancient first sign of "Mazzaroth" (Job 38: 32) tells of the coming of the "seed of the woman" (the Virgin Maiden of Virgo). Virgo has in her right the Spica of Wheat or the Seed, and the brightest star in Virgo means "the seed." Jesus, when referring to his coming death, said to the Greeks - "except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone, but if it die, it brings forth much fruit." (John 12: 24) The Virgin in the constellation of Virgo also has in her left hand a "branch" and this is one of the most ancient names of the Messiah or "seed of the woman." (See Isa. 4: 2; 11: 1; Jer. 23: 5; 33: 15) The first Decan of the Virgo constellation is the sign of "Coma" and this word means "the Desired One," and which is also a title of Christ "the seed" in scripture. (See Haggai 2: 7; Dan. 11: 37) The other two Decans also testify of Christ, the divine seed who would be Reedemer, Judge, Shepherd, and both God and man. So, the gospel revelation is as old as the garden of Eden."
The defense he gives of the gospel of Jesus Christ being published since the foundation of the world entails general Messianic references in the Old Testament or in star constellations, not clear, specific data of Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament in terms of His death, burial, and resurrection. Surely any honest person should concede that signs in the stars are a poor substitute for the clarity of Paul's gospel.
To claim that the signs in the stars were equal in the degree of revelation as compared to the New Testament gospel is absurd. Signs are certainly subject to interpretation in a way that language is not. Brother Garrett is grasping at straws to substitute these signs for New Testament doctrines, as if they're equally revealing. There is plainly a difference in the degree of knowledge available, which is the only relevant point, let alone the passages I have referenced in Hebrews that mark a distinction of spiritual clarity.
Brother Garrett does not really address the issue by this argumentation, but only highlights the inconsistency of the degree of pre-gospel era revelation and the clearer revelation in the New Testament. While the revelation he points to in star constellations can certainly be seen as consistent with New Testament revelation, it can hardly be said to be as clear as that revealed in the New Testament. As signs that point to Christ, they are obscure enough to be considered "hidden" in the sense of Paul in Ephes. 3:9.
My argument has never been that the Old Testament or nature contain no signs or foreshadowing of Christ, but that the signs and promises of Christ are more obscure than New Testament revelation and knowledge. The faith of Old Testament saints certainly embraced this revelation, but their faith did not embrace the same content in degree of clarity as New Testament believers. This is pretty obvious, even by Brother Garrett's own arguments.
Also, the inconsistency of means in regeneration is noteworthy by comparison of the content of the revelation available. So, even for Brother Garrett who believes that special revelation is instrumental in regeneration, it wasn't the New Testament gospel as delivered exactly as Paul gave it in New Testament times that was the means by which God regenerated Abraham. Even Brother Garrett admits that Abraham was regenerated directly by God, and the knowledge that was the object of his faith was far less clear than the gospel knowledge that is the object of the faith of New Testament believers. Since Brother Garrett has to admit this for Old Testament believers like Abraham, why does he insist that God's effectual call is only by the gospel in New Testament times, since, even if God regenerated Abraham directly through the revelation God made available to him, that revelation was still not clearly the same extent of knowledge as New Testament believers enjoy?
John 6:45 evidences utter consistency with the teaching of the Father that is common to all the elect across the span of time. This direct teaching precedes - no matter how much time is considered - coming to revelation, whether nature's, Christ's, or the gospel as preached by man, by the use of the past tense in "hath heard" and "hath learned".
Brother Garrett stated:
"The Gospel is not the "only" revelation that can produce "the faith of God's elect"! The scriptures declare that there is no faith apart from hearing the gospel revelation -"Therefore faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) "
It depends on what Brother Garrett means by "gospel". The good news of Jesus Christ's birth, death, and resurrection specifically do not appear to be the object of Abraham's faith. From the Gen. 15 account, and the way in which Paul deals with Old Testament faith in Hebrews 11 and Galatians 3:8, I don't see how Brother Garrett can insist that Abraham's faith embraced Jesus Christ the same way that Paul's faith embraced Jesus Christ. Abraham trusted and believed God, not specifically the God-Man, Jesus Christ, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
Now, I think that the trust in God for Abraham was of the same intensity that Paul's trust that he (Paul) arose with Christ from the grave, but it was less informed - much like Isaac's implicit trust in Abraham in traveling up the hill to the altar. Did Abraham know how God would provide when he lifted his knife to the heavens with the full intent of plunging it in his son's exposed breast? Did Abraham know where God wanted him to go when God told him to leave Ur? Did God tell Abraham how he planned to make him a Father of many nations? Not according to the Genesis account he didn't. This ignorance is actually germane to the point of Abraham's example in the Bible.
Brother Garrett stated:
"The holy prophets "have been since the world began" and their message was a gospel message concerning salvation through Christ. Jason can claim that the gospel revelation is not the oldest revelation, but in this he is against the scriptures."
I'm not saying that prior revelation was fully separate from the gospel. It certainly foreshadowed the revelation of Jesus Christ, and I would argue that all revelation has been consistent, leading up to the fullness of gospel revelation. But to argue that it always has been as clear as it is in the present is ridiculous. If Brother Garrett was even remotely correct, you would expect to see the Old Testament as clear as the New Testament concerning all Christian doctrines. Was Augustine wrong to say that the New Testament was in the Old Testament concealed, and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed?
How can a rational person even begin to take the position that the prophets of the Old Testament preached a salvation through Christ with the same clarity that Paul did? I'm not saying by this that the revelation is not consistent, but types and shadows exist in the Old Testament that were not understood completely until the New Testament, which is likely at least part of Paul's reference in Ephesians 3:9.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Is the heathen who only has the light of nature and creation able to have "the faith of God's elect"? What saith the scripture? What saith the Old Baptists of ages past?"
I have never argued that men could be saved by natural revelation. All the elect are taught and learn of the Father directly in regeneration, and whatever revelation is available is then embraced by the faith given, conforming and sanctifying them to the image of Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)