References: "Ought to Settle the Matter" and "Singular vs. Plural".
Brother Garrett has stated that I seem to have become hostile and irritable toward him. I have only returned in kind his own accusations against the Primitive Baptists, as his view of the atonement of Christ being contingent on those foreknown to believe is a denial that they were chosen in Christ that they would believe.
Perhaps he should cease making "seeming" uncharitable accusations of the Primitive Baptists, and I will cease making "seeming" uncharitable accusations. He may claim, "but my accusations are true!", but I claim the same of mine. Should we, therefore, continue in "seeming" hatred?
Please remember that I am not the one who first established blogs to accuse, as he has, for almost a decade, the Primitive Baptists of being a heretical cult.
I will stop referring to him as a "Fullerite", if he will stop referring to the Primitive Baptists as "Hardshells". He might say, "but PB's like this designation!". The overwhelming majority of them do not call themselves such, and understand that it is a term of derision. It was not a self-applied appellation, and those who rejoiced in appearing to be stubborn, as if this trait alone is virtuous, were and are foolish. The cause of Christ is mockery enough, why should we not only desire to be called 'Christians' as believers were first called at Antioch, therefore?
I truly love Brother Garrett as a brother-in-Christ, and I hope he knows that I personally bear him no ill will. I admire his intellect and fervor, and rejoice that he defends the gospel, though he defends a fractious gospel of contention with envy and strife. Have I, as well, been contentious? Yes, but only to the end of hoping we could lay aside the sin that doth so easily beset us.
I would be more than willing to cease and desist all that is rhetorical, if he would do the same because I freely confess my heart is not in debate but for truth's sake, and I do believe that debate can be a blessing when total truth is it's aim.
Brother Garrett stated:
"The following are all the scriptures that speak of being "from," "of," or "among" the dead. Some of them use the preposition "ek" (out) and some use "apo" (away from). Many of them are of the same Greek construction as Eph. 5: 14 - "ek ton nekron." Let us see if any of these passages speak of living people being among the dead. Let us see how being "among the dead" means that one is dead."
I want to say first, (nay, scream, rather) has Brother Garrett addressed 1 Thess. 5:6 and it's use of katheudo? Has he addressed the general context of 1 Thess. 5:5-10 and Romans 13:11-14 and what it surely implies to the same practical section of Ephesians 5:14 that we find in Paul's epistles? No he has not. I wonder why? What more needs to be said unless he gives us a good reason to see katheudo differently than how Paul used it himself?
All the passages Brother Garrett quotes have reference to being physically dead, not spiritually dead, except Romans 11:15. In this passage life, zoe, is clearly contrasted to nekron, so there is no doubt in that context - it is not a contrast of katheudo to nekron.
Brother Garrett's appeal is not cogent because none of these passages contrast katheudo with 'ek ton nekron'. Can Brother Garrett show one passage other than Ephes. 5:14 where katheudo is contrasted with a spiritual sense of nekron? Neither of us can because there aren't any - that is the only point. There is no such passage besides Ephesians 5:14.
So the argument he makes is invalid. The only relevant consideration would be passages that have this contrast of the words and in the same sense. Since there are none besides this one, such appeals as he makes to other texts that clearly refer to a different context of death than under consideration and contrast words differently are certainly indecisive. He has the suggestive 'ek ton nekron' and I have the irrefutable usage of katheudo from 1 Thess. 5:6. Which one's clearer? It's rather obvious to me and most authorities, especially as the sense in which we can understand 'out of (ek)' does not imply that those coming 'out of' are the same state as what they come from.
Let us think of it this way, does every passage that refers to X out of (ek) Y mean that X is equal to Y? Well of course not. Consider Acts 8:39. Does the fact that Philip and the eunuch came up out of (ek) the water mean that Philip and the eunuch were water? Obviously (ek) refers to movement or change from something to something else. It does not contextually establish the exact meaning of the states of the thing changing, only context can determine that.
Brother Garrett stated:
"None of these passages speak of the living coming out from among the dead. None of them imply that the living are among the dead and are simply being called to separate themselves from the dead. In all cases "rising from the dead" denotes coming to life. It never speaks of the living coming out from among the dead."
Yes, because it is a clear context of physical death. What is the clear context of Ephesians 5:14? It is the practical exhortation for believers not to fellowship the dead (Ephes. 5:11). Now, Brother Garrett, what does fellowship clearly imply? Surely that they can be among them in "works of darkness" that they fail to "cast off" (Romans 13:12).
Brother Garrett stated (here):
"Jason Brown recently argued that the singular implied pronoun "thou" in Eph. 5: 14 showed that not all who are "among the dead" are addressed, for had they been, the plural would have been used. He says this is a call to a special group within the larger group of"the dead." But, he does not see how this argument backfires on him. His interpretation still interprets the singular as applicable to more than one! Does he not say that Christ is speaking to all the elect? Is that more than one? Does he not say that this command to awake and to rise up from among the dead is directed to all sleeping elect? To all who are asleep among the dead?"
The fact that there are more than one of the elect in disobedience in application of this text does not somehow indicate that Paul's contrast of the singular being a subset of the plural is contradicted. That is the application, not the referent of the text. The referent of the text is to each individual believer sleeping. It is that the individual sleeper is called awake by the gospel, not the general dead. Therefore, all believers should "examine themselves whether they be in the faith or not". Are individuals having fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness? Awake and arise to the truth of the gospel, and Christ will shine upon you, reproving you into His image.
The singular reference of the plural dead establishes indisputably that only the sleepers are addressed, not the general dead. Now, this could mean that the "sleepers" are spiritually dead men that God intends to resurrect unto gospel belief, but this means that the gospel is discretely addressed and affirms what Garrett would consider a hyper-Calvinistic approach to preaching the gospel. He would be rebuked in his opposition to hyper-Calvinism by this text, therefore, if we understand the sleepers to be the unregenerate elect.
It also could mean, as I take it to mean, that the ones sleeping are disobedient and not spiritually dead. I take this position because of the context of the commands being to the believer not to fellowship the works of the dead, rather reprove them (Ephes. 5:11), and Paul's own use of katheudo in 1 Thess. 5:6 of Christians who can be "of the night" by disobedience.
Brother Garrett stated:
"The reason for the singular use of "thou" is because the call is personal and directed at the individuals within the group called "the dead." Christ says to you, said Paul, who are among the dead, i.e. who are dead, to rise and awake from that condition. The address is to anyone who is asleep among the dead, i.e. to anyone who is dead."
So, if the gospel is directed personally by God's spirit individually, why do you not tell the dead that God has promised to call from spiritual death only those whom He predestined in Christ? This is the truth from this text, even as Brother Garrett understands it, now why do you obfuscate it by telling all to whom you preach that God would have all men to come to the knowledge of the truth (Garrett's view of 1 Timothy 2:4)?
Garrett's view - "the address is to anyone who is sleeping among the dead (i.e. to anyone who is dead)" - takes katheudo totally out of the text. So, again, why didn't Paul just use nekro twice? The Greek will not accommodate such a hap-hazard translation, besides the fact that we know from 1 Thess. 5:6 how Paul is using katheudo, which totally destroys Garrett's view.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Further, all through I Cor. chapter eleven Paul uses the singular "the woman" when what he says is applicable to all women. So, the fact that the words of Eph. 5: 14 is addressed to the one (singular) who is dead, it is applicable to any who are dead."
This assumes that katheudo also refers to being spiritually dead, however. To defend this, you'd have to prove that. Now how did Paul use katheudo across the New Testament again?
No comments:
Post a Comment