Garrett on "Doublespeak"

Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/doublespeak.html

Brother Garrett stated:

"Jason Brown wrote: 

"Now, what Brother Garrett should know about the Primitive Baptists is that they fully believe in the instrumentality of the word in sanctification and conversion. In his last post, he seemed incredulous that I would suggest that in this gospel era, the gospel is God's means of conforming the elect to the image of Jesus Christ. No Primitive Baptist denies that the gospel is the power of God unto this conformation to the elect under the sound of it, as the Bible states this quite plainly in Romans 1:16, 8:29."


 What brother Brown says is doublespeak and double talk.  It is a means and it is not a means.  It is optional and it is not optional."

The gospel is a means in growing in grace and in the knowledge of the truth in increasing conformity to the image of Jesus Christ, but it is not a means in implanting or infusing grace in the moment of spiritual birth or regeneration in the first instance. It is a means and is not a means in two different contexts.

There is nothing at all contradictory in claiming A in context X and -A in context Y. This only becomes contradictory if I insisted that the gospel is not a means in regeneration in certain instances, but that it is in other instances of the same type in which regeneration is not a means, or A in context X and -A in context X at the same time and in the same relationship. The same would be true of conversion and sanctification.

Now, Brother Garrett does not believe that there are two different contexts when the gospel is preached. He obviously believes that the gospel is a means in regeneration and after regeneration. However, what he believes is not relevant to his charge against me in the above quotation, which was specifically that my beliefs contradicted. Where is the contradiction?

The sense in which I explained sanctification and conversion as being "optional" was in degree, not in existence. Where is the contradiction in that?

My guess is that Brother Garrett is really responding, even though my words above don't directly deal with the issue, from the standpoint of his conviction of my central error in my idea of the elect of Romans 8:29 being "conformed to the image of Christ" by the gospel, which, in his mind, would entail the alleged contradiction of my applying that only to those under the sound of the gospel rather than to all of the elect.

Perhaps he should reserve his accusations of contradiction to that point.

Brother Garrett stated:

"It is ironic and contradictory that Jason, in the beginning of our debate, criticized me for supposedly believing in more than one way of salvation (regeneration), while he supposedly believed in only one kind of being regenerated, the "Spirit alone" kind.  Why?  Because he is now himself promoting more than one kind of salvation, more than one way of being "conformed to the image of Christ."  People who hear the gospel are conformed to the image of Christ by the gospel, but those who do not hear the gospel are conformed to the image of Christ without the gospel.  People today are saved differently from those who lived in OT times.  Consistency thou art a jewel!"

I have never argued that all aspects of salvation experienced by all of the elect are the same. If that were true, the very fact of different life experiences would be objectionable. I have argued that regeneration is identical in the manner it is effected, not only because the Bible teaches that it is effected immediately by the Spirit of God alone, but, in order for Romans 4:16 to work, Paul's concept of justifying faith, and the presumptive regeneration that would impart this principle of grace, must extend to every single one of the elect from the beginning of time.

The revelation and knowledge available to all the seed is obviously not uniform unless one believes no infant or mentally incompetent person is elect. The fact of differing degrees of revelation and knowledge does not imply a "different salvation" any more than a different life experience by which one learned to add patience to their faith would imply a "different salvation".

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the full revelation of God. According to Galatians 3:8, Abraham did not have this  explicit gospel, as Abraham was told that God would justify the Gentiles by faith before the gospel, not that He would do it through Christ Jesus. He had more general promises of God, but those promises of Gen. 15 were certainly not explicit in how God would achieve them in Christ - certainly not as explicit as the gospel preached by Paul.

Knowledge should not be confused with faith. What is common in the conformation of the elect to the image of Christ in time in all the elect since the beginning of time is a basic trust and faith in the revelation of God available, which, in Old Testament times, was direct revelation from God, and later, the Old Testament.

In the gospel era, the fullness of God's revelation in Christ was revealed, and to those blessed to live in that era, the mystery of godliness has been revealed - things that were hidden since the foundation of the world (Matt. 13:35, Ephesians 3:9). Brother Garrett would have us believe that the gospel has always been available to the elect, which is erroneous by the plain meaning of the texts referenced.

Paul's declaration that the gospel is the power of God unto the conformation of the elect to the image of Christ is fully consistent with the manner in which God's revelation directly or through the law, across the ages, was the power of God unto the conformation of the elect to the image of Christ. It all correlated to the degree of revelation revealed to the elect. The gospel revealed more clearly the righteous standing of the believing elect than ever before, and what a blessing it is to live in this era of time when the reconciliation of God to man in Jesus Christ is manifest.

There is no reason, therefore, to insist that by Romans 1:16 it must be concluded that only the gospel as Paul delivered it to the Romans revealed the righteousness of God. Who argues that the law did not reveal the righteousness of God to the elect (though it certainly was less explicit)? God revealed His intention to justify the heathen directly to Abraham. It cannot be argued logically, therefore, that only Paul's gospel conforms the elect to the image of Christ, as all revelation of God is consistent, though not equal in terms of knowledge revealed, and of the same sanctifying efficacy to those who trust in God (which is the root of it all).  

Brother Garrett stated:

"But, it is also interesting how the "degree of sanctification" for those who are both regenerated and converted is significantly different, in the Hardshell paradigm, from that which the "regenerated heathen" experience.  Let Jason tell us about the "degree" of "sanctification" that exists in his "regenerated heathen."  Let Jason tell us about the "degree" of being "conformed to the image of Christ" in the "born again" Muslim or Hindu."

I'm not certain to what context Brother Garrett refers by "Muslim" or "Hindu". If he refers to individuals who have heard the gospel and rejected Jesus Christ, there is no evidence that they are born again, as, "He that is of God heareth God's words, ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God (John 8:47). There is no such thing as a pre-gospel Muslim any more than there are married bachelors. It seems to me, therefore, that Brother Garrett is being somewhat spiteful in dragging ridiculous views of some modern Primitive Baptists to the table just to make the PB's look silly.

If he means pre-gospel era heathen, or heathen of the gospel era that were in places geographically isolated from the gospel, he takes us into the realm of complete conjecture. As he mentions, Elder Sonny Pyles does reference Ezekiel 3:4-6, which intimates the possibility, but it is still speculation. If God has, God has revealed himself directly to them, and whatever revelation is given to them is the power of God to conform them to the image of Christ.

This blog post is already quite long, so I'll stop this entry here. I'll take up some of the remainder of Brother Garrett's post in a later entry, though I think I have already addressed the general force of his "doublespeak" accusation.