Garrett's Faux Gold

Reference: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/04/gold-or-stubble.html

Brother Garrett stated:

"In his most recent posting - "Garrett's Straw, Hay, and Stubble" - Jason responds to an older posting of mine - "Jesus Uproots Hardshellism" - and it is quite obvious that what we wrote in that posting was "gold, silver, and precious stones" seeing it has endured the test of fire, the test of opposition.  Jason certainly did not burn up or destroy what I wrote in that posting!  In fact, for all he said, he did not even address the main argument! "

Honestly, I was giving Brother Garrett the benefit of the doubt. It was not clear from his blog post, "Jesus Uproots Hardshellism", that Brother Garrett was making the argument that the gospel is as genuinely offered to the non-elect as it is to the elect. I thought he might have been arguing simply that the idea that gospel belief is incumbent on the non-elect is an idea on which all Primitive Baptists should agree. I rebutted this idea by explaining that the majority do admit this.

Now that he has made it clear that he means to say that the gospel is offered to all men in the same sense of potential salvation, not from a viewpoint of a lack of knowledge of election but from a viewpoint that the non-elect could actually be eternally saved, I will gladly address this contradiction of irresistible grace. For the purpose of this refutation, I will presume Brother Garrett's Calvinistic view that the propositional gospel of the New Testament is God's means of applying eternal salvation. It is not logically possible to argue that the gospel is meaningfully offered to every, individual man without discrimination and also hold that God draws the elect irresistibly to gospel belief.

Quite obviously, if Brother Garrett believes, as he claims, in irresistible grace, the sense in which the non-elect are "offered" the gospel without such irresistible grace is fundamentally distinct from the sense in which the elect are irresistibly drawn to believe the gospel. Irresistible grace applies the righteousness of God through gospel belief to the elect, so the sense in which this process could be described as an "offer" is certainly a misnomer. Conversely, without irresistible grace, the sense in which we would describe the non-elect as being "offered" salvation through the gospel without the means by which faith could be exercised in the gospel, is, again, a misnomer.

It might sound good on paper to some, but it is patently absurd. It's simply more Fullerite nonsense like the statement that Christ's atonement was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only to those that believe.

The idea that the gospel should be "offered freely" in the gospel presentation because the non-elect actually could be saved is a rather obvious contradiction, or a denial of 5 point Calvinism. And it is hardly supported  by claiming that Jesus contradicted Himself in John 10:38. Brother Garrett simply assumes that Jesus means a saving belief and a saving knowledge in this passage.

Does Brother Garrett think that Nicodemus was regenerate because he believed that Jesus was a teacher sent from God in John 3? He has already stated in a previous blog months ago that he thought Nicodemus was unregenerate. But why, then? He believed Jesus was from God - the same thing Christ is exhorting the pharisees to believe in John 10:38. How is it all "obvious" and "clear" that Jesus is actually telling them to be eternally saved? And, even if He did, would it not be obvious that they couldn't be saved because they were not of the elect? 

Besides, if Christ were exhorting them to believe and be eternally saved, it follows that their possible salvation was provided for by God, and, again, that would contradict election and particular redemption, as they were non-elect. It is elementary to see the contradictions here. Or is Brother Garrett intending to call these doctrines into question? Is the Bible not clear enough in John 10:29, Brother Garrett? The security and particularity of redemption to the elect in John 10:29 is all the logical force necessary to be equally confident in the eternal hatred of God toward Esau and the non-elect pharisees of this passage. It is inconceivable and contradictory to believe, therefore, that Christ included, among His sheep, the non-elect of which he said, "Ye are of your Father the devil", in John 8:44.

If Christ's "invitation" was a testament to the liberty of their will, meaning that they were at liberty to believe, not that they would ever desire to believe because the unregenerate do not have the desire to believe, what would that establish, as Christ did not die for them. The Father did not draw them to Christ's gospel. The mere liberty of their will is a moot point because, in their liberty, they are still under bondage to sin. So, though gospel belief is an option for them in terms of a choice that is available, it is universally descriptive of the will of the non-elect that they choose among competing evils.

Still, even if Christ were "inviting" them to believe the gospel, as they are at liberty to do, it would not imply that they could actually be eternally saved in regard to the decrees of God.

Obviously Brother Garrett is not saying that they "could be eternally saved" from the limited perspective of man, or the liberty of their will, because it is Christ Himself that has noted that they are not of His sheep. Their eternal destiny is as sure as the eternal destiny of the elect, and if Brother Garrett supposes that their eternal destiny is not certain, then, to that same degree it is not certain for the elect. All of this is manifest denial of the doctrine of election, or a hopelessly convoluted doctrine of man.

Lastly, how is it at all consistent for Brother Garrett to claim Christ is "offering" eternal salvation to the non-elect pharisees in John 10:38 when John 12:39 clearly states that they could not believe? It states that their minds were blinded and kept from belief.