I will now continue my rebuttal to the writings of the Fullerite, Stephen Garrett.
Brother Garrett stated:
"But, the fact that Paul says that God is the Savior of all men does not mean that all men are actually saved. Certainly God is the keeper and preserver of all men. "In him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17: 28) "Safety is of the Lord." (Prov. 21: 31) All men can thank God for their earthly deliverances and safety.
Further, God is the Savior of all men provisionally, as respects eternal salvation. Why would Jason deny that God declares himself to be to all men the only Savior available?"
An interpretation like John Gill's of 1 Timothy 4:10 is not at issue. Garrett plainly understands the text to extend the atonement of Christ to the non-elect, not simply refer to the general providence of God. Gill certainly did not understand this text to teach a provision of God in terms of the atonement, so the impression Garrett gives, as if Gill intimated Garrett's application or as if Garrett's ideas are "not so far off" from Gill, does injustice to that stalwart of the faith who, being a defender of the faith par excellence against any designs against limited atonement (not particular redemption as Garrett might underhandedly suggest), was taken from the Christian world before the advent of this doctrine.
The idea that God declares "Himself to be to all men the only Savior available" can be said if it is meant, "God declares Himself to be, to all men that believe, the only Savior available", as regarding the liberty of the non-elect.
But this idea is not what 1 Tim 4:10 is teaching because the word 'all' is constrained by the context of 1 Timothy 2. Besides, if it was referring to each and every individual by 'all', the text would teach universalism, because there is no basis in the text alone to argue that only the believers are saved. It clearly states that God is the savior of all men, especially those that believe. Garrett has as much basis in this text to argue for a provisional atonement as he does a universal atonement. In fact, his interpretation either contradicts itself or establishes universalism, as I shall show.
Now, if, as Garrett supposes, the provisional atonement is taught from this text, and that it is merely extended without being actualized by Christ's literal atonement for the sins of the non-elect, manifestly, the provisional atonement is not extended (how can it be, Christ did not atone for their sin), and God is not the actual Savior of all men because Christ did not die for the sins of the non-elect, and Garrett's sense of the text is rendered contradictory.
However, if Garrett supposes the provisional atonement is taught from this text, and that it is extended to the non-elect by Christ actually atoning for their sins, it is impossible that all men will not be literally saved because even their unbelief was atoned by Christ, proving universalism by the impossibility of the contrary.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason says - "Brother Garrett affirms a sense of a universal atonement to the non-elect." Hypothetically or potentially, yes, but actually no. But, do the Scriptures not affirm the same? "
This is a central error of Garrett. Christ's atonement either atoned for the sin of the non-elect or it did not. If it did, they cannot be damned because they have no trespasses to be imputed.
Brother Garrett stated:
"All those for whom Christ actually bore the guilt of sin will be saved. But, God has absolute foreknowledge, and knows who will believe and who will not. Therefore, Christ died only for those whom he foreknew would believe. But, this does not necessitate that Christ's atonement was not offered to all."
Observe the central contradiction of Garrett, "all those for whom Christ actually bore the guilt of sin will be saved". So Christ did not actually die for the sins of the non-elect?! How can Christ's non-actual atonement atone for the non-elect? How is there even a question about "who will believe and who will not"? What is this but a denial of the plain declaration of Scripture and the London Confession that the basis of God's election was His good pleasure, not anything he foreknew (Ephesians 1:11)? How dare Garrett claim to be an Old Baptist!
There are all kinds of problems here besides the obvious denial of Ephesians 1:11. Poor Brother Fralick, I know he agrees with Brother Garrett about the Primitive Baptists, especially as pertaining to those among them who hold to an unbiblical version of timely salvation, but I suspect he rejects Fullerism (and with good reason). The central logical problem, I think, is that Christ still only died for those God foreknew, which obviously means that there is no logical sense in which those that do not believe were atoned, so Garrett still contradicts any logical possibility of an actual provision for the non-elect.
Brother Garrett stated:
"But, in this he admits that all the elect (the "all men" of the passage) will not only be "saved," but also "come to a knowledge of the truth." But, if he admits that all the elect will come to a knowledge of the truth, then he has abandoned Hardshellism."
This is not really a problem, see my section in part one where I flesh out what it means to know the person of Christ in the new birth. This is the historic Primitive Baptist position, as can be seen from the Fulton Confession.
Brother Garrett stated:
"As I said earlier, Jason believes that the "will" of God, in this verse, is his sovereign efficacious decree. But, in this he has the problem of defending Hardshellism which denies that all the elect will not only be "saved" but "come to a knowledge of the truth." Deal with that brother Jason and quit ignoring it."
They all shall know the Father and Christ from the least to the greatest. I have answered this kind of issue many times in many posts. Refer to part one.
Brother Garrett stated:
"How contradictory are the words of brother Jason! He says, in one breath, that all the elect have faith in regeneration, but now he says, in another breath, that they all do not have a common or shared faith!"
Not all the elect for whom Christ died have been effectually called, that was the point Brother Garrett. This is the sense of the difference between the elect that are saved by Christ, but are not in a state of belief. From 1 Timothy 4:10 it is clear that the elect are saved, though they have yet to believe in Jesus like the elect who have been effectually called.
Brother Garrett stated:
"An offer of salvation does contain the means. But, an offer of salvation in itself does not guarantee the salvation of any. Only as the Spirit works effectually on the heart of a sinner does the sinner accept the gracious offer."
So a resistible grace of God is given to the non-elect? Or is it that grace is not irresistible?
No comments:
Post a Comment