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.