More Fullerism from Garrett

Brother Garrett stated (here):

"Jason uses the phrase "in this sense" often and yet one is left bewildered in understanding him.  He does admit, that the non-elect are "at liberty to believe in Christ."  I wonder how his Hardshell brethren will react at such an admission?  If he got up in the typical Hardshell church and affirmed such a thing, I am confident that he would be chastised and "called on the carpet."  If he got up and said - "eternal life is available to the non-elect" - he would be rebuked.  Let him deny it.  Classical Hardshellism will not affirm that eternal salvation is available to the non-elect in any "sense.""

Brother Garrett's view of "classical hardshellism" is hardly an entity that can easily be defined. He defines this idea arbitrarily, let us take the Fulton Confession as an indication of "classical hardshellism". I would no more be "chastised" by any present Primitive Baptist than would James H. Oliphant, the moderator. I feel in good company to be rebuked by any, therefore.

Oliphant wrote in, "Thoughts on the Will", chapter VI :

"Reader, if you are not a Christian, let me ask you what reason could you assign why you should not be lost or why you should not die now. Your cup of sin is full enough, were it the pleasure of God to call you hence now. Men are not simply in danger of being lost or under the curse, they are that now. This is not a state of trial and probation for man; he is now under the curse and under the law. Among criminals on earth and before human courts the criminal has no power to relieve himself, he is at the sovereign disposal of the court; no power to rescue himself, and yet to blame for his condition. This is true of the criminal in the best governments of earth, and we insist it is also true in God’s government of men.


The hope of the convict is only ill the mercy of the court, and so it is before God; every human being may say, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me whole.” This view of the subject puts God on the throne, and puts man, all men, in the attitude of the criminal."

Oliphant addresses the unregenerate here. And it is only in such manner of the liberty the non-elect and unregenerate have to "call upon the name of the Lord" that they can be addressed, but they will not come that they might have life (John 5:40).

Brother Garrett stated:

"An offer of salvation is an offer of atonement.  But, for the non-elect, it is not an offer of an atonement already effected for them.  Christ died for believers only.  Had it been the will of God for Christ to die at the end of time, the offer now would be as it was in the OT.  Believe in the Lord and he will atone for your sins.  Certainly this was true with regard to OT peoples."

For the non-elect the offer of atonement for sin isn't effected? Christ's blood was shed for the possibility of their remission of sins, therefore, Brother Garrett must be saying.

Consider, "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5:21)." Also, two verses earlier, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.." These texts were effected fully at Calvary, manifestly. When Christ died on the cross, he either was made sin for the non-elect or he was not. If Christ was made sin for the sins of the non-elect, their sins are already atoned from these texts, and they have no sin to be imputed for their unbelief, proving universalism. If Christ was not made sin for the non-elect, their sins were not atoned by the death of Christ, and there is no logical possibility that they can or could be reconciled. It really is that simple.

Brother Garrett stated:

"Is Jason saying that Christ is offering them a salvation that excludes an atonement?  What kind of salvation is that?  Jason has been guilty of doublespeak on this point.  He has sometimes wanted to argue that Christ is offering mere temporal salvation, and then, at other times, has affirmed that he was offering them eternal salvation, at least, in some"sense."  The atonement, like the salvation, is only a possibility."

The choice of life and trust in God through Christ is a choice the non-elect are at liberty to make, but this is presented in the Scripture, as in John 5:38-40, in terms of their inability to do so, and it implies no provision of God. Though the non-elect are at liberty to believe in terms of physical freedom, it is morally impossible for them to believe.

Though atonement and eternal salvation are associated with being in a state of true trust in God and Christ, and are the antecedent purposes of God to true belief, true belief is morally impossible, just as the atonement, by which, if it were not otherwise in the purposes of God, this belief would have been established, is equally impossible. The impossibility of true belief in Christ, from a moral standpoint, by the non-elect establishes the impossibility of their atonement. Their liberty does not prove salvation is possible, just that they are to be blamed for their sinful preference to be unbelievers, that they reject belief, and, therefore, any salvation or atonement that would be, if the purposes of God were not otherwise, the cause of true belief.

Therefore, from a logical basis, Garrett controverts logic to believe that God has not effected their belief, but that God made their atonement logically possible.

Notice especially also, logically, if Garrett argues that the atonement of Christ is provisional to the non-elect upon their belief, he must accept to the same extent that their non-election is in a very real (actually possible) sense provisional on their unbelief, which is plainly disputed by Jude 4. God's decree of non-election by leaving the non-elect in the sin of Adam, is not the full basis of their damnation, therefore. God's decree of election was provisional on the unbelief of the non-elect necessarily - to the same degree that the atonement was extended, yet this makes a mockery of the doctrine of election, logically controverting what is plainly discrete. It is here that Garrett's folly is reproved as darkness from the sun, for God's decree of election is not in any sense provisional, nor can be.

Garrett's question, "what kind of salvation is that?", is an odd question coming from someone who agrees that God has not willed the non-elect to be saved. Again, Garrett cannot argue that salvation is logically possible when true belief is impossible.

My defense of a temporal sense in which unbelievers can enjoy the blessings of God upon believers, or destroy themselves for not obeying the gospel is not at odds with the non-elect being at liberty to embrace eternal life. Even if John 5:34 is viewed as a testimony of Christ to embrace eternal life, as they were at liberty to do, the most immediate result of their rejection was their own temporal destruction, and, of course, after death, hell fire. How is this contradictory? There is no reason to limit the effect of their rejection to damnation, as Jerusalem's destruction was surely because they had rejected whom they had not received. There is also no more reason to see eternal salvation actually possible from this text than there is that true belief of the non-elect would have been actually possible.

The central confusion of Brother Garrett is that a choice in terms of liberty does not imply that it is logically possible because, in fact, it is not logically possible from the invariable preference of the sinful will of man, and the decree of God. Where Garrett errs is inferring what is purely a hypothetical possibility from the liberty of the choice of the non-elect to what is actually possible. The hypothetical possibility of the non-elect's choice to believe does not make eternal life any more possible than the fact that they were foreordained to eternal fire.

Now, Garrett can go all over the gospel of John if he wants to, the outward promise of eternal life to any that believe, both to the damned and to the elect, promises nothing outside of true belief, which is impossible to the damned. Does that imply it is upon belief that the promises are conferred? It need not, as no one denies the association of them, but, even if it did, it would not make the outward offer of eternal salvation to the non-elect any more possible than it was when only the elect were predestined to eternal life before the foundation of the world.

Garrett simply wants to believe, perhaps so he can be a soul winner to the non-elect (!!), that the choice the non-elect are at liberty to make to come to Christ implies that they could have eternal life in actuality, but this is irrational because, as he should know, it is impossible for them to believe, therefore it is equally impossible that they even could have been atoned for by Christ.

Brother Garrett stated:

"What Jason fails to admit, however, is the fact that all the sheep (elect) become believers in Jesus.  And, how does one believe in Jesus?  By the Gospel!  For, "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?"  He calls his sheep by name.  This effectual call is directed towards the sheep and produces faith and allegiance to Christ the Shepherd.  "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me."  How do they hear his voice?  Through the Gospel as Dr. Gill and the Old Baptist taught.  Jesus plainly says that the"sheep" are they who hear his voice, who "believe."  If one does not believe, then he is not one of the sheep.  This destroys classical Hardshellism.  Jesus says that the sheep are they who believe in him, who know him.  How can this be said of the heathen who are ignorant of the Scriptures?"

I'm loathe to get into this here because it is beside the general subject of this thread. Suffice it to say, that there is no uniform manner to apply this necessary knowledge of Jesus Christ to all the elect according to gospel propositions. If I were to ask how infants gained this knowledge, Brother Garrett would either not directly answer the question, or suggest that it is reasonable that God, who calls those things which be not as though they were, could grant them sufficient cognitive faculty to receive such knowledge. And he would be right, God could.

But what saith the Scripture? In Matt. 21:16, Christ states that 'out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.' How do they do this without the ability to understand propositional language? Does Garrett suppose God grants them cognitive powers without the ability to speak?

It seems to me the most logical explanation is that not all beliefs are formed on the basis of propositions. I posted a blog post in which I argued, as Alvin Plantinga, head of the Philosophy of Religion department at Notre Dame and probably one of the greatest Christian intellectuals since Edwards, does in, "Warrant and Proper Function" and "Warranted Christian Belief", that basic (the most basic or properly basic beliefs as he calls them) are formed immediately from experience. They are formed by a non-propositional, phenomenological process. He argues that belief in God is properly basic in this manner.

No one constructs their visual experience into propositions before they assent to them. I examine these beliefs, if I want to describe my experience, but the experience itself, and the beliefs that arise, are formed in a manner seemingly embedded in my visual experience without direct, critical analysis of the brain, not as in considering propositions of language.

There is no rational reason to object, then, to the idea that a direct perception of Christ in regeneration constitutes the object of the faith imparted, shedding love abroad in the heart and mind - God writing his law into the heart and mind (love being the fulfillment of the law), and is a fundamental knowledge of Him that all the elect have. This sense of it is also necessary to understand Romans 4:16.

Now, Brother Garrett objects to this because he thinks the intention is to suggest that unevangelized heathens are saved, or people that reject the special revelation of God. To the latter, it is ridiculous to conceive the spirit within at war with itself in the revelation of God. There is no basis to admit the former, or of any scale on which it might have been done, except in the sense which everyone freely admits: that God can do as He wills, revealing Himself to whom He wills. Who can say anything finally of the heathen, except as Brother Garrett himself will admit that God can save whom he will?  

Many will argue that special revelation has been uniform as regard to the essentials of evangelical faith, but the real substance of this belief is assumed because in their minds it cannot be otherwise for the adherents. How much do we know for certain that Abraham knew? Gen. 3:15 is it. Is it really clear from this alone, how he knew the heart of the gospel from this prophecy? I do not think it as reasonable to suppose as compared to the idea that his spiritual confirmation of heirship in the revealed Christ within testified to this prophecy; rather than, as in our time, the Scripture testifying to the spirit within.

Brother Garrett stated:

"Further, do the Scriptures not say that "you are not alive because you will not come to me"?  (John 5: 40)  Did Jesus not put life and faith together when he said - "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die"?  (John 11: 26)"

This is a non-sequitur; I have always argued that belief and life are associated.

Brother Garrett stated:

"There is that word "sense" again.  In this sense, yes, in that sense, no.  That is Jason's common response.  These words of Brother Jason are muddled and contradictory.  Eternal salvation is "offered to the non-elect" in some "sense," but the offer is "not the provision of God"!  If God did not provide them with the offer, who did?"

Hardly contradictory; eternal salvation is had by them that truly believe. The non-elect have this choice, to which it could be said to be offered in regard to their liberty, but they will all not believe, and, therefore, the impossibility of their atonement is confirmed in the impossibility of their belief. Did Jesus die for the non-elect so that they might believe? Absolutely not, such an idea is the height of irrationality, if Jesus died for them, they must on some level come to true belief.

Brother Garrett stated:

"Brown wrote:

"It does not logically require the possibility of actual salvation in order for it to be an "offer" in this technical sense..."

Christ is not offering "actual salvation"?  Then what kind is he offering?  A salvation that is not real?  Since Jason appeals so much to "logic," let him tell us how that is logical."

By this time, it should be apparent for Brother Garrett the critical error he is making in logic, which is why the TULIP cannot be embraced in part. Logic binds the full sense of each of it's letters. Brother Garrett's commitment to Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace logically prohibits him from saying that Christ's atonement could be possible to those who will never believe outside of God's grace, as it is impossible that eternal life could possibly be possessed by those that can't possibly believe.

Again, the fully hypothetical salvation that would be for the non-elect, if they came to Christ, is hypothetically conceived, just as the possibility of true belief, which they are at liberty to exercise and which would be associated with such a salvation, is fully hypothetical to the non-elect. Neither of these possibilities could be actual because it is not possible that the non-elect could truly believe.

I think this is sufficient for this entry, as it is already quite long. I'll take up the remainder of his post at a later date.