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).
No comments:
Post a Comment