This blog will respond to Garrett's Comments here: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/more-doublespeak.html, and here: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/jason-on-faith-of-elect.html.
Brother Garrett stated:
"There is really no need to disect the remarks of Jason as anyone can see that it is simply more doublespeak. The citations are very clear and yet Jason trys to make the citations to say what they do not say. Jason thinks that I need to travel among the Hardshells and see for myself how the Hardshells have changed since I was with them in the 80s. But, my dad is still a Hardshell and I know that Jason is wrong."
I simply suggested that many emphases of modern Primitive Baptists have to be clarified. It is not always clear what their position is. I have personally talked to many ministers with similar emphasis as Hagler or the Salem Association, and they do not mean to suggest that the regenerate elect have no spiritual reaction to the testimony of the spirit under the sound of the preached word. They are simply emphasizing that the faith exercised by the regenerate is variable in the exercise of it, not in the existence of it to any degree.
One person's testimony of what the PB's teach is a poor representative sample of the majority, especially if Brother Garrett's dad is not asking the right questions. If you ask general questions of the nature of the regenerate under the sound of the gospel, you will likely get answers that reflect the typical PB emphasis that distinguishes them among Christian denominations. I certainly question this emphasis and the manner in which it is often presented, but that is not to say that it is absent an element of truth.
Brother Garrett stated:
"But, I never affirmed that the revelation of the gospel that Abraham believed was as clear as that which is believed today. What I have affirmed, however, is that all the elect will be believe the gospel revelation to the degree that it is revealed. There is no difference, however, in the basic elements of the gospel message that was believed by OT believers and by today's NT believers."
Brother Garrett argues there is no difference in the basic elements of the gospel message that was believed by OT believers and by today's NT believers. In order to prove this, Brother Garrett would have to show that the content of Abraham's faith embraced the death, burial, and resurrection of the historical figure of Christ. Otherwise, the "basic element" of the gospel of the Old Testament becomes a general salvation promised by God.
There is no clear indication in the Old Testament of the precise manner in which God would save His people. There are hints and elements that prophecy of redemption through Christ, but the eunuch needed Philip to interpret Isaiah and apply it to the revealed Christ. By itself, the eunuch could not understand if Isaiah spoke of himself or another.
Brother Garrett stated:
""And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Gal. 3: 8)
"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." (Heb. 4: 2)
These verses say that the same gospel was preached to Abraham and to the Israelites that is today preached by ministers of the new testament. Jason can resist believing them, but we will accept them for what they say."
Galatians 3:8 says that God preached to Abraham before the gospel, it is illogical, therefore, to suppose that Paul equated what was before with what was presently. Also, if you equate what was preached to Abraham by God with the gospel, "In thee shall all nations be blessed" becomes the content of the gospel. Where is Christ revealed to Abraham explicitly in that?
As for Hebrews 4:2, Brother Garrett simply begs the question. "Gospel" simply means good news. This text does not indicate that New Testament doctrines of Christ were preached explicitly to OT Israel. In fact, the spiritual lesson is, that the Israelites refused to trust in God at the good news of the rest of God in Canaan being their inheritance, and, like them, the Hebrew audience is exhorted not to fall from the promised rest, which is the fulfillment of the type of Canaan in the OT, by unbelief.
This interpretation is clearly confirmed by Hebrews 4:8. The gospel of the rest of OT Israel was clearly not the eternal rest of God through Jesus Christ, but a rest in Canaan's land, which is a spiritual lesson for NT believers.
The idea that the revelation available in OT times had the same content as the gospel preached today is unsupported from both of these texts.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Let us ask Jason - "does a person have to believe the gospel to be saved?" I predict that Jason will not give us a straight anwer to this question, but will give us more doublespeak, saying, on one hand, that yes they do, and then saying, on the other hand, that no they do not."
If we define gospel as trust in God for salvation, then, yes, all the elect will trust in God and embrace any revelation available as a result of the effectual call.
No comments:
Post a Comment