Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/end-of-browns-hiatus.html
Brother Garrett stated:
"Anyone who first reads Romans 10, without any bias in interpretation, will confess that"Romans 10: 9,10 is a plan by which mankind obtains a heavenly home" and yet this is denied by Jason and the Hardshells as being the prima facie interpretation of the text. The concept of "time salvation" is read into this section of the Roman epistle and is not discoverable by anyone by a prima facie reading of the text. Jason's denial that Romans 10 is talking about eternal salvation is not discoverable from the text itself."
Salvation has many aspects, it is erroneous to view every reference to salvation as entailing every stage of the ordo salutis. The Apostle Paul has already stated in the Book of Romans previous to this text that the function of the gospel and evangelical faith is to conform the elect in time to the image of Jesus Christ.
So the idea that Paul is not referring to the temporal aspect of salvation in Romans 10:9 is incorrect, as he had already defined his use of the term in the proximate context. Now, I think that Brother Garrett is objecting to the application of a "timely salvation" as misapplied by some Primitive Baptists. A kind of "timely" salvation that is fully optional. However, the effectual calling of God is a "timely" salvation that is not optional to the elect. Some degree of sanctification is a "timely" salvation that is not optional to the elect. A fundamental conviction of the truth of the gospel by the spirit to the elect under the sound of it is a "timely" salvation that is not optional (1 Cor. 1:18).
A temporal aspect of salvation that is optional to the elect is whether to confess Jesus as Lord, as in Romans 10:10. Romans 10:11 indicates that the regenerate under the sound of the gospel will generally confess their faith, but it certainly is possible for a regenerate man to fail to confess what they really believe is the truth, as Peter.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason could just as well have said "Peter's denial destroys the idea that Paul is talking about eternal salvation in Romans 10: 9,10." But, this is a classic non sequiter. Peter, is he to be styled as a "confessor" or a "non-confessor" ('denier')? The former obviously, for Peter confessed Christ every day of his life except one. What "characterized" Peter was his confession of Christ. Peter's one time denial of Christ was not "characteristic" of Peter."
I agree with Garrett here, but notice that he now concedes that Romans 10:9-11 is to be understood of what is characteristic of truly regenerate people. Confession is characteristic of those with actual belief, not that confession necessarily follows it in every instance. This has always been my point. Obviously it is incorrect to construe from this passage that confession always follows belief, if actual belief is possessed, as Peter disproved.
It is conceivable, therefore, but not characteristic of possessing true, saving faith, that individuals could believe in Jesus, but in an instance of immaturity or weakness fail to take up their cross and follow Him in public confession or baptism. This variability in obedience, however slight, is what Primitive Baptists mean by "timely salvation". The difference in Christian purity among actual Christians is explained in terms of their sanctification to the image of Christ by their choice of whether to "embrace with meekness the engrafted word". This is what Primitive Baptists mean by "timely" salvation. How can it be argued that when it is applied in this manner it is Scripturally erroneous?
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason speaks of "the only logical solution" to the perceived contradiction that exists, in his mind, between Peter's "confessing not" and the idea that confession is necessary for salvation. That "logical solution" is to affirm that the salvation of Romans 10 has nothing to do with eternal salvation! And, what is the whole purpose in denying that the salvation of Romans 10 is eternal? It is in order to affirm the opposite of what Paul says! A cursory reading of the text says that faith in Christ and confession of him is "unto salvation," the same salvation that was discussed in the previous nine chapters. But, Hardshells undermine the words so that they come out meaning "faith and confession are not unto eternal salvation." In other words, many will be saved who do not believe in or confess Christ!"
I never said that the salvation of Romans 10 had "nothing to do with eternal salvation". In fact, I denied this quite plainly in showing that salvation, properly understood, is both timely and eternal by Paul's definition of salvation as being made conformable to the image of Christ in Romans 8:29.
What I have labored to show is that the temporal or "timely" aspect of salvation is what can be resisted here in time to a degree by regenerate men at points, according to their will in quenching the spirit (1 Thess. 5:19). How can this be Biblically disputed? It is a fact that if regenerate men could not disobey the gospel by quenching the spirit, Paul would not command regenerate men to "quench not the spirit".
I have never said that those in this gospel era who live a life rejecting Jesus Christ should be considered saved people. I know of no knowledgeable Primitive Baptist who would consider such people certainly regenerated. Garrett or Fralick cannot point to contemporary PB views of Romans 10:1 as counter-evidence because what they both fail to note about "non-ignorant" PB views of this text is that all knowledgeable Primitive Baptists who hold this view consider the national Jew as a special case of providential blindness per Isaiah 6:8-13, 2 Cor. 3:14, Romans 11:25, Matt. 13:11-17. These same individuals do not view Romans 10:1 as indicative of Christ-rejection being characteristic among all of the regenerate elect.
Of course, Brother Fralick or Garrett haven't bothered to be discrete about who they take as representative of the Primitive Baptists. They seem to think it is sufficient to take the worst version of Primitive Baptist beliefs and knock it down as obvious falsehood.
Brother Garrett stated:
"According to Jason, the "salvation" of Romans 10 "may possibly be missed by some of the elect"! How anyone can read Romans 10 without bias, taking the prima facie reading of it, or taking it at "face value," and then conclude that "many will be saved who do not believe and confess," is astounding."
Again, Brother Garrett is unfair to what I actually said. I said that it may possibly be missed..at points. What I indicated was the differences in the degree of sanctification and discipleship among the regenerate, not that sanctification and discipleship would be totally missing. The Bible does not teach that all of the elect are conformed to the image of Christ like automatons. Many will be eternally saved who did not believe, confess, and serve in the Kingdom of God...as much as others. They will all be convicted of the truth of the gospel by the spirit when under the sound of the true gospel (1 Cor. 1:18,24 - saved in verse 18 is exchanged for the effectually called in verse 24, so in this text "being saved" is having been regenerated).
Brother Garrett stated:
"But, Jason has violated Pyle's admonition for he has contended that the salvation of Romans 10 was not eternal salvation, but a "time salvation."
I never contended that Romans 10 had no "eternal" significance in terms of the events of time signifying the eternal reality. What I contended was that salvation is best defined by Paul's own definition of it in Romans 8:29 because there he summarized the essence of any one step in the ordo salutis. If Brother Garrett has a problem with the implications of this definition in that it is not "fully eternal", so much the worse for Brother Garrett's view.
Brother Garrett stated:
"By "this conformation" Jason is alluding to that "conformation" that is the result of God having foreknown and predestined, what pertains to one's eternal salvation. And, Jason is willing to admit that "temporal suffering" is one of the means ("mechanism") to effect that "conformation." If Jason can believe that God uses "temporal suffering" as a means in eternal salvation, why does he find it difficult to believe that God likewise uses the gospel as a means? Further, Jason has affirmed that all the elect will be progressively conformed to the image of Christ and that this involves discipleship. Has he not come a long way?"
But I have never denied that it is the nature of the elect to embrace in evangelical faith the revelation available. All Primitive Baptists teach that the gospel is the means of conversion to discipleship and perfection in moral obedience.
I suppose Brother Garrett means why do they not teach it in the particular doctrine of regeneration. The gospel of John 3:8 doesn't teach gospel instrumentality in regeneration, but we've already discussed that point. He will disagree, but Primitive Baptists and many other Calvinists like James White or R.C. Sproul disagree. Nevertheless, Brother Garrett will claim this doctrine as more evidence of the PB's being a cult when it is clearly the case that this doctrine is defended by many outside of the PB's.
Anyone approaching this issue free of prejudice would conclude that John 3:8 teaches an unmediated, supernatural cause of regeneration. This position certainly has the advantage of the intuitive reading on this text to the honest observer.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Though it is good that Jason decries the "complete" (or "total" or "teetotall") "separating" of the elements of salvation, of regeneration from conversion, or of present salvation from future salvation, and the making into two which the scriptures make into one, it is not good that he does not follow his own advice. Does not Jason separate and divide in the manner he condemns? Does he not divorce faith and confession from eternal salvation? "
Garrett has already admitted that faith and confession are divorced from eternal salvation in conceding that it is "characteristic" of those truly regenerated, but, like Peter, not absolute! And now he is accusing me of the exact thing he himself has conceded. Viewing confession as "characteristic", but not necessarily absolute at any specific time in terms of embracing the engrafted word is the temporal aspect of salvation that is variable.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason here answers his own previous argumentation about the case of Peter proving that confession of Christ is not necessary for being eternally saved. It is ironic indeed. Peter was a true son and "as a general characteristic" of his life, was a "confessor" and not a "denier" of Christ. So, the case of Peter does not prove that one can be saved even though he is a denier of Christ, as Jason wants to affirm."
I used Peter to prove that one can be saved even though they may not confess Christ in every instance, not that they won't confess Christ ever or at all. A failure to confess Christ in even one instance is sufficient to demonstrate that confession does not always automatically follow true belief. I have never denied that the text indicates that confession is characteristic of true belief; in fact, that is what I argued. The point is, that Garrett has conceded my point that true belief is logically separable from confession, and that confession is an evidence of true belief.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Okay, we grant that Jason affirms that the great majority of regenerate adults who hear the gospel will believe it and become followers of Christ. We grant that this is an improvement over most of today's Hardshells who affirm that many non-Christians will be saved. Jason separates conversion and regeneration in only a few cases while most Hardshells do it in most cases. But, the fact is, they both separate them to some degree, whereas the Scriptures and the Old Baptist confessions do not separate them in any degree."
Garrett inconsistently argues that the Scriptures and Old Baptist confessions do not separate regeneration and conversion in any degree, but has already admitted that confession or public assent to the gospel that signifies discipleship and conversion may not always or in every instance attend true belief, as in Peter's denial. Surely he could be more consistent with what he admits Peter proves?
No comments:
Post a Comment