Garrett's Concluding Remarks on Hebrews 3 and 4

Brother Garrett stated:

"In these words brother Jason does not seem to have any serious objection to the "rest"being equated with receiving "the full eternal inheritance."  Then why all the hubbub?  Further, I never objected to the idea of there being a "temporal entering," but simply argued that an entering of the rest, in time, was not the focus of the Apostle in those chapters.  

But, it seems clear that the chief problem for Jason and the Hardshells, in view of rest being an eternal rest, is in the fact that Paul restricts entrance into God's eternal rest to those who are Gospel believers.  But, Hardshells do not limit entrance into God's rest to Gospel believers only."

In an evident context of impending apostasy, the Hebrew epistle was written to professed Christian Jews that were teetering on the brink of falling back into Judaism under the pressure of persecution.  Hebrews is written to the visible community of believers - professed Christians - to whom the promises of God are already evident.

Now, Brother Garrett infers from Hebrews that those who do not receive the promises of God in the gospel in time are eternally damned.  In this he is rebuked by the plain declaration of Hebrews 11:13, 39, and 40.  To the same degree that the Old Testament saints stood apart from the reception of the promises of God in the gospel dispensation, is the same degree that eternal inheritance is separable from gospel belief.  He cannot say that there is no difference because the gospel dispensation gives gospel dispensation believers, "some better thing".  If it was the view of the Apostle that there was no substantive difference, surely he would not have asserted that they, "died in faith having not received the promises", which emphasis Garrett must deny in order to defend a standard of knowledge for eternal life that is plainly controverted by Paul.

So, it is not a chief problem of the "Hardshells" to explain how all of the elect inherit eternal rest apart from the same degree of gospel revelation, but a problem for Stephen Garrett who has to explain how Old Testament saints could have had eternal life when they died in faith without receiving the promises.

All the "hubbub" is because Brother Garrett misses the epistemic focus of Hebrews, as can be evidently seen from a consideration of Hebrews 11:13,39 and 40.  The concern in Hebrews is not centrally about inheriting eternal life, but it is a call to professed believers to ensure that they have true belief, as there is no rational basis to hope for immortal glory by any that fail to embrace the promises of God in time.  I take the thesis of Hebrews to be introduced in 2:1-4, and it is this theme that is central to this epistle.  In this way, Brother Garrett's insistence on his interpretation fails to account for the application of the truth that only true believers inherit eternal life, which is to, "examine whether you be in the faith or not".

Brother Garrett stated:

"Is this an admission that Gospel unbelievers will not inherit eternal rest?  What about the unbelieving heathen?  They have not been converted, and so have not entered into the rest of God even now.  Thus, if only those who have entered God's rest now, in conversion, are the only ones who will enter the eternal rest, then Jason holds a position that is not in keeping with today's Hardshells.  When Jason speaks of those "that truly believe," does he not mean the same as Paul, i.e., those who have believed the Gospel?  Is this not a cognitive believing?  Does it not embrace the propositions of the Gospel?"

Hebrews asserts that gospel unbelievers have no rational basis to hope for eternal rest.  Those apart from gospel revelation have no gospel knowledge as a basis to hope for anything but the damnation of God.  The rest of God that gospel believers enjoy in time is a more sure word of prophecy.  There is no rational basis to affirm that those outside of gospel revelation will enjoy the eternal rest of God, nor is there any rational basis to affirm that those that depart from the living God by rejecting the gospel will enjoy eternal rest.  All of this follows from the fact that Paul asserts gospel belief as the only sufficient grounds for hope (Hebrews 3:14).

However, Brother Garrett admits that some regenerate individuals, i.e. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, did not inherit the promise of God in Canaan because of disobedience, though their disobedience was in instances, not habitual.  Though I do not believe that Paul's reference in that "faithless generation" was to the regenerate among them who certainly could not be described as Paul quotes in Hebrews 3:10, "they do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways",  Moses, Aaron, and Miriam still prove that the regenerate can fail to temporally inherit the promises of God, as King Josiah was also killed for his disobedience.

Now, the promised rest of Canaan was a temporal promise of God, and, while analogous to the promise of eternal life, should not be fully equated with it (manifestly, as they did not enter heaven by crossing Jordan); else it is no longer an analogy.  What the entrance into Canaan's land was a direct example of, and not an analogy to, was the temporal belief necessary to enter the temporal rest of God (the contingent promises of God to the visible faith community).  Garrett mistakes the temporal entry into Canaan as a mere analogy of eternal reward, which it is, but the direct reference of the entry is to the contingent, temporal promises of God.

Notice that Paul quotes the O.T. promise in Psalms 95:7 in Hebrews 3:7 and 13, which is available TODAY.  This is not a reference to a future enjoyment of the eternal promise of God, though it is analogous to it.  This is the same promise that was made to the faithless generation of Israel.  It is for this reason that it is evident that the rest of God in Hebrews 4 is not a direct reference to eternal rest, though analogous to it as the same analogy in the example of O.T. Israel, but a direct reference of the same covenant promise made to Israel. 

That Paul does not limit the promises of God to eternal rest is also evident in Hebrews 6:13-15.  The covenant promises of God are not limited to the promise of eternal life, but also include temporal promises contingent on obedience.  Moses failed to inherit the temporal promise of God of Canaan's land through disobedience, which is a direct reference to the manner that the regenerate of the gospel dispensation can fail to enter into God's rest, but is analogous to the failure of the non-elect to inherit eternal life, as the majority of unregenerate Jews whose carcasses fell in the wilderness.

What Brother Garrett fails to consider is that the association of temporal obedience to the gospel to eternal salvation is primarily epistemic in it's application, not metaphysical.  There is no way to know whether one is actually in vital union with Christ without gospel belief and obedience.  It does not follow from this that vital union is impossible without propositional knowledge or critical cognizance of the union, as the spirit of God is the efficient cause of vital union and the preservation of the elect in vital union. Certainly, the spirit's instrument of preservation is faith and the spiritual perception of Christ as the object of faith, but this is distinguishable from  the clearest intellectual cognizance of the vital union in the most knowledgeable of the regenerate elect.

Reality is not dictated by our intellectual knowledge of it; rather, knowledge is reflective of reality.  Surely there is a correlation, but what is real is the foundation of what is known to be real.  What is known is not the foundation of what is real, which is the philosophical and Biblical truth in which most of Christendom, and, even, the atheistic, secular world errs.  It seems a common habit of man to forever arrogantly confound reality with what he apprehends of it.

Brother Garrett stated:

"Jason admits that the context of Hebrews 3 & 4 deals with "eternal rest."  He says that this "exhortation" is given in time.  But, no one denies this.  Jason admits that sinners are exhorted to believe and thereby be assured of entering God's eternal rest.  I know that Jason's brethren will not agree with him in affirming that people are exhorted to enter God's eternal rest."

I want to note two things here.  First, my Primitive Baptist brethren all concede that the sense in which people are exhorted to enter into the rest of God is in entering the temporal rest of God, which is a foretaste of the eternal rest.  No PB would disagree with that.  No one, not even Garrett, can argue that Paul is exhorting Christians to enter the literal eternal rest of God because the literal rest cannot be fully entered until death.  So, the sense in which people can be exhorted is only to the end of being personally assured of the final rest.  In that the temporal rest is a foretaste of the eternal rest, there is a logical sense that all Primitive Baptists are exhorting people to the eternal rest of God when they exhort them to the temporal rest, as these two are not fully separable.

Second, I have said over and over again on this thread of articles that temporal rest is analogous and a foretaste of the eternal rest of God.  In this way, the context of Hebrews 3 and 4 is ultimately about the eternal promise of eternal salvation by God, but the temporal promises made to O.T. Israel and any present communities of believers are analogous to the eternal promise of God that is made certain to the children of God by God's preservation of them in faith and general obedience (Hebrews 3:6, 14).

The difference between the eternal promise of God and temporal promises is that God effects the former, but the sense of their analogy is that people can only be certain of the former by the latter.

Brother Garrett stated:


Jason contradicts himself in these words.  He says that he agrees that "the exhortation"is in order "to enter into the eternal rest," but then says that such an exhortation "makes no sense."  How can he agree with it and then say it makes no sense?  Is it not attacking his own stated view?"


Further, it is not true that the exhortation would not make sense if it were confined to entering eternal rest.  Other Scriptures speak of laboring and striving for final salvation.  Notice these passages:

"Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain."  (I Cor. 9: 24)

"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."  (Phil. 3: 8, 9)

If the Corinthians had already obtained the prize, then why is Paul exhorting them to run in order to obtain it?  Further, the "race" is correlated to the Christian's life service, and thus the end of the race is the end of his life and service.  I see a parallel between Paul's exhortation to "run that you may obtain" and his exhortation to "labor to enter into God's rest."  

Even though Paul had been initially saved in conversion, yet he still labors that he "may win Christ," and to be finally "found in him." 


I hardly contradicted myself because I only conceded the association of the events of time with the eternal reality.  I did not concede that eternity hinges on time.  Brother Garrett, however, references these texts with a liberality that is surely flirtatious with such heresy.  A degree of perseverance is a temporal reality because the elect are preserved by the power of God.

The texts that Brother Garrett quotes establish that eternal salvation is effected by God in time.  Men are not finally redeemed as they live until they are glorified at the coming of Christ, so they should take heed to their calling and election, not arrogantly affirm that they stand as certainly regenerate in Christ.  The texts quoted establish that it is irrational to affirm a future eternal salvation when sin is not mortified and the gospel kingdom not fully enjoyed.  The sense in which Paul "obtains" final, eternal salvation is from the sense in which temporal preservation and sanctification are the necessary effects of the spirit's presence in the inner man.  Where any degree of such efforts as Paul's are absent, so is the influence and presence of the spirit absent (Romans 8:9,10).  So, in terms of the effects of the spirit's presence, there is a sense in which final, eternal salvation is "obtained" or progressed toward by the regenerate as the effect of being effectually called.

This progressive obtainment (sanctification) is part of the provision of God of eternal salvation, and is the necessary effect of that provision, and it is no more obtained here than it was in the covenant of grace before the world was. Some degree of "running" in sanctification is the necessary effect of the predestination of God.  What is specifically obtained is not final salvation, as this cannot be fully realized in time, but a greater conformity to the image of Christ by the knowledge and strength of assurance of final salvation and of being known of God in the covenant of grace (Galatians 4:9).  It is an ill-advised emphasis to take these texts outside of the whole counsel of God as Brother Garrett seems to uncritically apply them here.

Logically, Brother Garrett cannot affirm that the basis of man's obtainment of eternal salvation is his actions in time.  Man's actions in time are simply the effects of this obtainment, and, as part and parcel of the obtainment, any sampling of the ordo salutis could be said to "obtain" man eternal salvation - yet only obtain it in part and process of the whole.  The texts he quoted reference a part of the obtaining of eternal salvation, and is not indicative of the basis of the whole.

Therefore, the basis of Garrett's argument that it is by such obtainment that the whole of eternal salvation can be obtained is facile, and as shallow of the whole counsel of God as to quote Romans 10:13 and imagine that God, with bated breath, waits for man's confession of belief to elect man from eternity.  I find such views of the Holy Scripture utterly repugnant because they reek of the odious assertion of the flesh, "I am the center of the universe." It shocks me that Garrett wants to embrace ignorant applications of mainstream Christianity yet reject what he considers the shallow, ignorant, and non-wholistic applications of some Primitive Baptists.  Consistency thou art a jewel?

It is clear that Brother Garrett, though he claims otherwise, cannot actually affirm that the passages he quotes make the obtainment of eternity contingent on time, but that the effect of God's decree from eternity entails some degree of temporal sanctification.  Therefore, exhortations to temporal obedience are exhortations of consistency with profession and what God, presumable to the profession of the faith of the individual, has decreed, not exhortation to inherit eternity on the sole basis of obedience.  Garrett's emphasis cannot be legitimately emphasized apart from the greater emphasis of the entire counsel of God: that the Lord knoweth them that are His.