Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/end-of-browns-hiatus.html
Brother Garrett stated:
"It seems to me that this recent hiatus by Jason may have been spent by our brother in deep contemplation of things which we have discussed over the past year and produced some good change of mind in him regarding the doctrine of salvation."
I do consider the things Brother Garrett posts on his blog seriously, as I am not interested in debate for debate's sake. I believe that Brother Garrett misrepresents the whole of Primitive Baptists by judging the whole by an ignorant minority. Many of the emphases of some ministers among the PB's are an ignorant overreaction to perceived doctrinal errors. There are many examples.
Just two weeks ago an Elder emphasized that, "we (the regenerate elect) are judged every day of our lives". Some PB Ministers make this emphasis when dealing with the idea of an objective judgment of God of all mankind. I went up to the minister after the sermon and asked him, "why do you feel the need to restrict the judgment of God of the elect to a context of the conscience of the believer? Are the elect not judged with the damned in Matt. 25?" Most PB's readily agree that they are, though I have known a few who even tried to make the goats of Matt. 25 disobedient children of God. Most ministers do not subscribe to that farcical view.
The minister to whom I was speaking conceded through the course of our conversation that the elect would, at least, go through a formality of judgment. I pointed out to him that that concession was enough to invalidate misapplying 2 Cor. 5:10 to a matter of conscience, though I pointed to the confusion of the sheep as well as the goats upon the judgment of Christ in Matt. 25 to indicate that the final judgment will not seem perfunctory to the sheep. Plainly, to interpret 2 Cor. 5:10 in this subjective fashion, as if it takes place only within the conscience of the believer, is a twisting of the obvious context and meaning of that text.
What is the point of such? I think 2 Cor. 5:10 seems too Arminian to most of them. The fact the text makes works, not Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, the deciding factor in their judgment makes most uncomfortable. The same is true of the final judgment depicted in Matt. 25, of course. Also, if of such is the nature of the final judgment, downplaying the necessity of bearing the marks of Christ's death in the body through sanctification and moral obedience for a legitimate claim of possessing eternal life certainly seems wrong-headed.
The point I'm making is that the minister was really declaring that Jesus Christ's death and resurrection is the basis of salvation. He was ignorantly apprehensive of 2 Cor. 5:10, as if it would tarnish the central importance of Jesus Christ. After conversation, he agreed that "spiritualizing" the final judgment was inaccurate and unnecessary. He had good intentions, but ignorant exegesis.
This occurs because of ignorance, as I am sure there is a great deal of ignorance in every denomination, given the anti-intellectual spirit of our age. Pastor and theologian are two different roles in today's world; in the past, ministers were expected to be both. Today, most people, even within the church have no patience for a theological sermon.
The PB's are not immune from this trend, but at least I can commune with a group of believers where Bible discussion dominates the lunch room, even if some of the discussion would not have caused Gill to rewrite any of his systematic works. Most other churches I have visited in other orders seem to consider it rude to speak on such topics, preferring the monotony of small-talk. As Elder Sonny Pyles says, sophistication leads to suffocation. So I prefer the tobacco-chewing Primitive Baptists.
I have not really changed my mind regarding the doctrine of salvation, but I am open to consider anything Brother Garrett has to say. What I truly believe is that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of what they label "Timely Salvation" is taught in the Bible as progressive sanctification and conversion - Elder David Pyles stated this in his sermon on Romans 1:16 - http://primitivebaptistsermons.org/sermons.php?page=12&st=&searchFor=, and that what is "timely" is perfected in eternity and what is eternal is manifested in time.
Now, it is elementary to me from even a cursory examination of Romans 8:8-14 and 29, that the Bible does not present these doctrines (for the elect under the sound of the gospel) as options; some degree of sanctification is an effect of having been regenerated, this is obvious from 8:9,10. I think all Primitive Baptists concede this as they all do claim to oppose the "hollow log" heresy.
I think this should be common ground for Brother Garrett and all PB's. There is nothing at all wrong with the designation of "timely" salvation as long as it is used to refer to those temporal effects of election in the eternal covenant of the Godhead.
The central error that Brother Garrett, Fralick, and I object to in some PB's, is not the concept of a salvation in time, but the supposed fully optional nature of this salvation to the elect. Some Primitive Baptist's give the impression that they believe that some of the elect are not conformed to the image of Christ in time, and they really do not believe this. What they mean to say is that some of the elect are not conformed to the image of Christ as much as others. This should be something on which everyone can agree.
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.
In summary of the comments here, I believe that Brother Garrett opposes and has opposed a climate of ignorance among present PB's, and I think an element of this is justified. He speculates that the errors of some PB's today is the obvious result of a doctrinal "bad seed" sowed years ago by men like Beebe, Thompson, or Parker.
However, a simpler explanation exists. America has "dumbed down" incredibly in the last century. Americans just don't read anymore. Christians don't read their Bible, and neither do preachers, it seems. This phenomenon also causes people to be hostile toward knowledge - perhaps it is because they know they are deficient, and they want to justify this deficiency by establishing the futility of intellectual analysis.
It is this anti-intellectual trend that is the real problem, otherwise you wouldn't have PB ministers failing to study what their forefathers actually taught.
No comments:
Post a Comment