Garrett's Comments 04-25-2012

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

Part of the difficulty of the current discussion with Brother Garrett is defining terms.

By the gospel being offered to the non-elect, Brother Garrett means in a very narrow sense. He is referring to the "technical" choice or liberty the non-elect have to believe the gospel; he does not believe that they are actually morally capable of believing the gospel. In addition, he does not believe that the non-elect must be morally capable of believing the gospel in order for it to be incumbent upon them to believe, nor should he.

God is not indebted to save all men because He saves some, neither are the non-elect excused for their rejection of the gospel because they have a nature that desires only evil. Man is ultimately responsible for sin, and rejecting eternal life. There is, therefore, nothing unwarranted about saying that the non-elect are called by the gospel to believe in this sense; otherwise, why are they judged in 2 Thess. 1:7-9 for gospel rejection?

However, Calvinists are criticized on this point by Pelagian Arminians, and some Primitive Baptists also criticize them. I, personally, agree with Garrett here, as the duty the non-elect have to believe the gospel surely rests on the same grounds. Also, how is it the wicked are held responsible for their evil works, the works other than Adam's representative sin, if they are morally incapable of good? Surely it is also upon the same grounds of their liberty to do otherwise, even if they are self-determined to do only evil.

On the other hand, Brother Garrett surely should be able to be open to the sense in which this "offer" of eternal life to the non-elect seems duplicitous since it is not attended effectually with the spirit. It seems problematic to see this "offer" as an example of the "loving kindness" of God when God surely knows that they are dead in their sins, though it is man's fault.

It does seem absurd to place physical nourishment next to a physically dead man, then claim it is an act of kindness. Or, perhaps, slightly more accurately, it seems absurd to count it as "kindness" to open your house to a rabid animal, thinking that the kindness might overcome it's nature - plainly it will not. How can any act be thought of as "kind" when it is not logically possible that it will result in the intended effect? It would be different if Christ didn't know otherwise.

The idea that Brother Garrett suggests that some things are "good in themselves" does not prove that there is not some degree of correlation, however possible, between a desired outcome and the doing of those things among men. He then just places a groundless idea on earth into the heavens where it supposedly redounds to the glory of God. Let him name one act of considered kindness from an earthly example that cannot presuppose some degree of effect, at least in intention, that is isolated from the deed. He cannot prove such "kindness" exists, for there are a million hypothetical explanations that could be given to explain intention. Even if the considered effect is unrelated to the recipient of the alleged kind act, it would prove an intended effect.

Therefore, and especially because of the context of the various passages, it seems to me that Christ is pronouncing judgment on the non-elect by these references to an "available" salvation for them. Certainly, as I shall show below, John 5:40 is clearly in this contextual vein, and we would be remiss to take 5:34 out of consideration of Christ's entire monologue of chapter 5.

As an aside, What does Brother Garrett mean by God 'making provision' for the non-elect? If he means provisions of what is commonly referred to as "common grace" in terms of the rain falling on the just and the unjust, I would agree. But if he means that Christ's atonement embraced every individual man, then Brother Garrett has departed from Scripture. Are you saying that, like Fuller, Brother Garrett?

Brother Garrett stated:

"Jason wrote:

"And, even if He did, would it not be obvious that they couldn't be saved because they were not of the elect?"Yes, it is true that they could not be saved.  But, I have already addressed that.  No one whom God foreknows will not believe will believe.  But, this does not keep God, out of his goodness, from offering salvation anyway.  Does Jason not believe that God does things for his goodness sake?"

If Brother Garrett is simply arguing that eternal salvation is presented by Christ as the destiny of those that believe and that that belief is presented in terms of the liberty of the will of the non-elect, though the will of the non-elect only desires evil, that is true enough. It is perfectly biblical to say that the natural man is not coerced by any other factor than his own wicked desires in his unbelief, and that he cannot believe because he will not believe. It is in this sense that belief could be said to be "available" to them, but it is only in respect to the liberty of their will, not the moral nature of their evil will. It is not possible that they could be eternally delivered, and Christ is not offering his atonement to the non-elect by John 5:40, as eternal deliverance proceeds directly from Christ's atonement, not man's belief, which is the confirmation of that reality.

The emphasis of 5:40 that Brother Garrett wants to make requisite in gospel preaching requires the premise that it is upon gospel belief that eternal life is given, which cannot follow from 5:37,38 or 5:24. The statement of Christ, "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life (John 5:40)," is assumed by Brother Garrett to imply that eternal life is fully contingent on belief. It is clear from John 5:37,38 that belief is fully contingent of having the Father's word abiding in one, as he clearly states, "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not."

It is not that Christ is implying that they could be eternally saved at that precise moment in 5:40 merely by a sudden belief, as Christ has already explained why it is that they cannot believe in verse 38 that quite precludes that possibility. The contextual basis of Christ's words in 5:40 is to confirm their damnation according to their own will, not establish any other actual possible outcome. It is as impossible for them to desire to believe in Christ as to have life because the word of the Father does not abide in them.

Now, Brother Garrett wants gospel ministers to emphasize 5:40 and ignore 5:38. I have harmonized both texts. Surely we should preach the whole counsel of God.

Let us consider:

"If you reject the gospel of Christ, you have not the word of the Father abiding in you, and, therefore, you will not come to Christ that you might have life."

"Believe on Christ that you might have life."

Brother Garrett is taking the emphasis of the latter out of context of the entire dialogue. Given the proper context of the former, 5:40 is obviously stated in a context of condemnation, and is logically consistent with verse 38.