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?