Garrett on Balaam

Brother Garrett offered the criticism (here) that Primitive Baptists are forced to conclude Balaam as a child of God because of the logic implicit in this quoted question and answer from Elder Moore:

"8. Do you not then teach that some might want salvation but could not have it because they are not one of the elect?

Answer: No, the man who wants salvation already HAS it."

Since Balaam stated in Numbers 23:10, "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!",  Brother Garrett argued that Primitive Baptists are committed to viewing Balaam, contrary to Jude 11, as a child of God.


It is difficult to understand why Brother Garrett makes so many facile arguments.  Is his problem with Primitive Baptist beliefs really exemplified by such a perceived incompatibility as this?  The facile nature of many of his arguments suggest that he has set himself against the Primitive Baptists irrespective of rational or scriptural justification.  It seems rather obvious to me that he could easily foresee the rejoinder to such an argument, and would, in the spirit of sincerity, dismiss articulating it, even for the sake of his, presumably, sincere cause, as he is more likely to be dismissed by those he sincerely entreats by shallow argumentation.  


The proffering of this supposed difficulty reminds me of opponents of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture who superficially quote two Scriptures and claim they are irreconcilable.


Surely Brother Garrett can distinguish the desire to escape the consequences of sin from the true, spiritual conviction of sin.  Primitive Baptists obviously refer by "the man who wants salvation" to men that sincerely want salvation, spiritually recognizing their sinful condition and willing to turn from it in true, spiritual repentance, not to those hypocrites, like Balaam, in unregenerate bondage to sin, who are intelligently afraid of the eternal consequences of the sin he, nonetheless, loves, as a son of perdition. 


Brother Garrett might as well include Esau in the 12th chapter of Hebrews who sought a place of repentance (or restoration to his birthright) carefully with tears.  If only Esau could have had his birthright and ate it too.  The damned can certainly desire eternal heaven and even Christ in terms of what they perceive they can gain (Matt. 7:21).  What rational mind would choose the eternal damnation of the unjust over the immortality of the righteous?  But the damned love mammon, and are appetitive beasts meant to be taken and destroyed.

Garrett on Charnock

Brother Garrett has asserted that my criticism of his view of effectual calling is refuted by the passages of Stephen Charnock that he quoted (here).

Brother Garrett stated:

"Stephen Charnock wrote, in his sermon "A Discourse of the Word, the Instrument of Regeneration," the following as it relates to the efficient and instrumental causes of regeneration.  These citations refute the argumentation of Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, wherein he argued that the instrumental cause must be viewed as the efficient cause."


My principal point is that it is perfectly clear that to the spiritually dead, carnal man, the instrument of the gospel is not instrumental except as the effect of the Spirit; the gospel is instrumental as the object of the faith and life effected by the Spirit - it is not instrumental to the Spirit's work per se, only the immediate effects of the Spirit in faith, however absolute these effects be.  In this wise it is a misnomer to refer to the gospel as an instrumental cause of regeneration when it cannot logically be instrumental to the immediate work of the Spirit.  This view is "sayable", but, carried to it's logical conclusion, it is not really thinkable.

The pertinent question is how the gospel is instrumental by the Spirit in causing faith in carnal man.  The gospel is simply propositional truth about Christ.  This propositional truth is used by the Spirit to effect faith in the carnal mind, presumably. But how is it that the Spirit effects faith literally by the propositional truth of the gospel?  Faith is mental assent and trust.  How is this drawn out through the gospel by the Spirit?  The Spirit grants the capacity for faith in carnal man, surely immediately.  Even Garrett argues that this is done immediately, but, then, the gospel is not an instrumental cause of this immediate act.  It is clear, then, in admitting that the creation of faith is immediate by the Spirit, Garrett cannot argue that gospel propositions are instrumental to this immediate act, and contradicts himself in claiming to hold to Charnock's inchoate view.


The carnal man does not have the spiritual capacity to exercise faith in the gospel apart from the agency of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14), so what exactly is the account here of how the carnal mind embraces the gospel by the Spirit without the Spirit not being the antecedent cause of gospel instrumentality in faith and repentance?  

When the Spirit first moves the carnal man to freely embrace the gospel, how is the Spirit's moving of the carnal man mediated meaningfully through the gospel when he is still carnal and incapable of spiritual discernment?  When the Spirit moves the carnal man how is it meaningfully "through the gospel"?  How is he quickened meaningfully by gospel propositions when he is dead and incapable of profiting in understanding the propositions until after he is quickened?  

Charnock states, "The Word of Christ is first Spirit, then life."  The essential question that must be addressed is this: how are the gospel propositions Spirit?  If they are Spirit in that they convey the Spirit, they effect life in that they convey the Spirit, not that understanding of the words can be meaningfully asserted before the spirit effects life and understanding.  What is the essential thing by which the carnal man is reborn?  Charnock argues that the Spirit effects life by the gospel, but the understanding of men that are, logically, yet carnal precludes meaningful instrumentality, and his view dissolves into a logical denial of 1 Cor. 2:14. 


I, or any Primitive Baptist, argue that the gospel, as propositional truth declared by men, is instrumental to conversion to discipleship, and that God, by the Spirit, is the efficient cause of it.

The fundamental difference between Charnock and the Primitive Baptist view of effectual calling is that Charnock views the conversion to open discipleship as a sine qua non of effectual calling in those "grown up (adults)" or of God's "ordinary" method of effectual calling, but, like the LCF, this is arbitrarily asserted in view of the effectual calling allowed in Charnock and the LCF in those, like infants, apart from the gospel, who are effectually called "extraordinarily".

If Charnock, and the LCF are understood as arguing that the gospel as preached by man is the instrumental cause of spiritual life in the sense that the gospel is the instrumental cause of faith, which is the immediate effect of the Spirit, this is perfectly reasonable to those effectually called under the sound of the gospel.  They cannot logically argue that the gospel is instrumental to the moving cause of life, but that the gospel is instrumental to spiritual life because it is the content of the gospel that must be embraced as a necessary condition of spiritual life. It is only in this sense that gospel "instrumentality" can be logically argued.  The point I have made is, even considering an effectual call made through the word, knowledge of the word cannot be meaningfully asserted as instrumental to the first cause of life, which is the Spirit.  The instrumentality of the gospel can only logically refer to the spiritual life effected by the Spirit in the faith exercised, which may have has as it's object the word or the content of the gospel, which is Christ.

Is it correct, then, to say that the instrumental cause of the effectual call is the gospel?  Strictly by logic it cannot be asserted reasonably because the instrumentality of the gospel as a cause of faith can only be meaningfully understood of those already moved by the Spirit.  The instrumentality of the gospel cannot be affirmed as instrumental until the dead have been raised and the capacity for faith established.  Spiritual resurrection mediated through the gospel is a void instrument on the deaf ears of the unregenerate until faith in the gospel is effected by the Spirit.  Spiritual resurrection cannot be argued as simultaneous with gospel belief, as, if the Spirit is not the antecedent cause, this would remove all logical basis to say that only the Spirit is the efficient cause.

Charnock is unclear on how the carnal man's understanding of the word as an instrumental cause of regeneration can be formulated without the Spirit's operation being viewed as antecedent to gospel belief.  His view, upon logical analysis, collapses into the view that the Spirit alone must be an antecedent cause of any meaningful sense of gospel "instrumentality".  Any clarification of what he meant relative to Total Depravity would collapse into affirming the necessity of the Spirit's immediate and antecedent work.

Garrett's Claim of Non-Sequiturs

Brother Garrett's article to which this post of mine is addressed can be found here.

Brother Garrett stated:

"The saving degree of intellectual cognizance of faith in the elect is fundamentally equal among them."

This is a concession that we are glad to see from brother Brown.  He has previously argued that the "faith of God's elect," the faith that is produced in regeneration and necessary to final salvation, does not involve cognition or mental understanding of Gospel propositions.  Now, however, he argues that there is "intellectual cognizance" involved in the "faith" that saves.  But, Jason has regularly been given to doublespeak, of saying contradictory things."

Brother Garrett also quoted from a private email to him from Brother Kevin Fralick:

"Just a word to say that I find Brown's remarks increasingly confusing.  He alternates between not hearing the gospel by man to hearing it by Christ when it is convenient for him, and pressed into a corner.

In his latest he speaks of a saving degree of faith being intellectual but that it does not involve propositional knowledge.

What?  Say that again?

Nothing can be intellectual upon which the mind has not first passed judgment by some proposition being presented unto it!  This would seem to me the equivalent of saying that the brain can receive something apart from the volition of the human will.
Jason needs to read Jonathan Edwards."

I have not alternated between the gospel as preached by man and Christ, but have argued that the essential gospel is the spiritual perception of Christ.  This essential gospel is immediate to the experience of regeneration whether the gospel as preached by man is present or not.  The propositions of the gospel as preached by man refer to the spiritual reality of Christ, they are not that essential reality themselves in their letter.

So, even in circumstances of an effectual call during the preaching of the gospel by man, the spiritual experience/knowledge of the person of Christ by the Spirit alone is the salvific and essential knowledge, not the propositions of language that may be assimilated as a part of faith that are intellectual extensions of the intrinsically salvific, spiritual knowledge by acquaintance of His person.

Some Primitive Baptists have referred to this spiritual experience/knowledge of Christ as a "subconscious" knowledge precisely because the basis of this knowledge is not the description in propositional language of the experience of Christ, but the experience itself.  And, if the effectual call occurs where the propositional gospel as preached by man is absent, the experience of Christ alone is what is known by direct acquaintance.

Philosophers distinguish knowledge by acquaintance and descriptive knowledge about experience, a.k.a propositional knowledge.  A knowledge of the immediate sensation of pain when a hot stove is touched is a simple example of knowledge by acquaintance.  The sensation of pain is known immediately from experience, it is not known only after the experience is articulated to one's self or someone else by, "Ouch!"  Such an articulation of the knowledge of acquainting one's self with those things that are hot, is not instrumental to the experience, and are irrelevant to the veridical experience.

The fundamental knowledge that is salvific in regeneration is the direct knowledge by acquaintance of the person of Christ whether or not propositions of language are present.

Perhaps Brother Fralick and Garrett need to balance their reading with some elementary philosophy before accusing me of irrationality because I will not bow to "proposition-mongering" as a basis for knowledge claims.

I do not agree with labeling the spiritual knowledge of the person of Christ as "non-cognitive" simply because it is not known on the basis of propositions for the philosophical reasons I have given.  Nevertheless, I think Primitive Baptists who do traffic in such labels are essentially "getting at" the same thing I am saying, and are really just saying that the knowledge is "non-cognitive" in the sense that it is not propositional knowledge, not that it is not intellectual knowledge by direct spiritual acquaintance.

When I say that the saving degree of intellectual knowledge is common to all of the elect, I am saying that they all have as the object of their faith the spiritual experience of Christ, not that they all share the same propositional knowledge about Him.

Hopefully this did not confuse Brother Fralick.

Brother Garrett stated:

"But, he has argued previously that such a knowledge of Christ lacks any propositions!  Further, I have refuted such a notion, using Hebrews 11: 6 as proof, and yet Jason has ignored the refutation.  Two propositions are integral to faith.  He that comes to God must believe 1) that God is, 2) that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him."


I did not mean to ignore Brother Garrett's "refutation", though if it is a refutation, I guess I should ignore it!  Brother Garrett seems to assume that when Paul asserts these two propositions as integral to faith he asserts them as integral as propositions.  This surely does not follow, as it simply begs the question of whether true beliefs must all presuppose propositional language.  Philosophers recognize that not all beliefs presuppose language propositions in the believing, though all beliefs expressed in language of course presuppose propositions.  The belief that God exists can be argued as a basic belief after the fashion of Alvin Plantinga in which the belief of God arises directly from the sensory experience of nature, not fundamentally as a result of deductive analysis of propositions of language, but as knowledge by acquaintance.

Brother Garrett stated:

"When he argues that this faith is "fundamentally equal among them," however, he is arguing contrary to what he has affirmed previously.  He has said that the faith of OT saints was inferior to the faith of NT saints.  Of course, what he probably means is that there is a bare common knowledge that they all possess.  Yet, he will not allow that this faith includes faith knowledge of Christ."

I have only argued that the difference in knowledge of Old and New Testament saints establishes that they are bound in the unity of the spiritual perception of Christ in the new birth.  All other differences are not intrinsically salvific.  I do allow that the knowledge of Christ the Old Testament saints had was faith knowledge, but this knowledge of faith was fundamentally the spiritual experience of the person of Christ - the same fundamental salvific knowledge that unites the elect in N.T. times in vital union with Christ, not propositions of language about Christ.

Brother Garrett stated:

"But, it is hard to debate with Jason on this because he attempts to have it both ways.  On one hand, he argues that faith in Christ, through the preaching of the Gospel by apostles and missionaries, is not necessary to be finally saved, but then, on the other hand, argues that faith in Christ, through the personal preaching of Christ, is necessary. "

The point is that when Christ reveals Himself, whether it is with the gospel as preached by man or apart from it, as in John 3:3-8, the fundamental, salvific gospel is the spiritual reality of the person of Christ in the heart and mind of the effectually called, not the letter of propositions of language that pale to the veridical experience of Him with whom we have to do.

I am not "having it both ways", but isolating what is absolutely core to the experience of the effectual call, which is the Christ, the true object of Biblical faith.

Brother Garrett stated:

"Let me add another proof that"faith" involves knowledge and acceptance of truth propositions.

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures..."  (I Cor. 15: 1-4)

Here the Gospel is defined as involving truth propositions and thus faith in the Gospel involves belief in the stated propositions."

The gospel that Paul preached obviously included truth propositions.  No one denies that.  How does this prove that the power of the Spirit or Christ that reveals the person of Christ must use propositions of language?  Does not Garrett believe that the gospel of Paul preached to the Corinthians was powered by the Spirit, which was the efficient cause of the Spiritual life?  Can he deny that the person of Christ is revealed intimately and directly by the power of the Spirit through the propositions of the gospel?  It is clear that the intimate knowledge of Christ in regeneration cannot be exhausted by the gospel propositions about Him, but is a veridical, spiritual experience of eating of His body and drinking of His blood.

Brother Garrett stated, quoting Brother Fralick and stating in yellow below:

"Brown is going against Michael Gowens on this point, who wrote:

"I do believe that all who are regenerated will and do have faith, but deny that the "faith" -- that is, the believing response to God -- is in all cases "cognitive" or "informed" faith -- for cognitive faith necessarily depends on hearing the rational proclamation of the gospel; rather, I do not hesitate to affirm that it is, in all cases, below the level of consciousness."

This demonstrates the confusion that exists among his brethren on this point.  Some, like Brown, want to contend for a non-evangelical yet cognitive faith in order to avoid gospel regeneration on one hand and hollow-log regeneration on the other.  Others, however, like Gowens contend for a faith below the level of consciousness.

Brown cannot flee to the direct preaching of Jesus for refuge in this case by claiming that Gowens had in view the gospel as being preached by man, for he writes that IN ALL CASES it is below the level on consciousness, and even cites the case of Lazarus to show that the "direct preaching" of Christ is itself below consciousness.

So does the direct preaching of Christ produce cognitive or subconscious faith?  Brown says the former; Gowens the latter."

Jason wants to say that men like Gowens represent an aberrant view of Hardshells, but he cannot prove this, though challenged to do so.  We know that Jason disagrees with Gowens, and possibly even David Pyles also disagrees with Gowens.  Jason cannot keep setting aside our citations from Hardshells on this without substituting citations of his own which show that Gowens speaks for a small aberrant faction."

As I have stated earlier in this article, I think Gowens is calling the faith "non-cognitive" because he is using a definition of cognition that, like Brother Fralick and Garrett, presupposes a standard of cognition by analysis that insists on propositions of language in order for beliefs or knowledge.  I object to this standard for cognition of all beliefs and knowledge, and argue that philosophers acknowledge that beliefs and knowledge by acquaintance fail to meet this standard of cognition yet nevertheless are seen as a cognitive function in the knowledge of these relationships.  Indeed, infants, the mentally incompetent, and certain animals are capable of such functioning, and it is certainly cognitive.

I think Brother Gowens is essentially arguing the same thing I am, but has unwittingly capitulated cognition, which certainly does not rationally follow from his commitment to the effectual call taking place among individuals apart from the gospel.  Also, by making it "unconscious", it becomes confusing to explain how one can be said to have experiential knowledge such that it is the basis of the knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ (John 17:3), not only after the effectual call in time but forever in eternity, which is surely the spiritual, mystical, perhaps somewhat spiritually analogous to the physical union of man and wife, and consummating knowledge of the vital union.

Brother Garrett stated:

"What "spiritual standard of gospel knowledge"?  Jason has never told us what is this minimal "standard" knowledge!  Will he tell us?  It obviously, according to Jason, omits faith in the proposition that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  It omits any propositions contained in the Gospel!  According to Brown, the direct preaching by Christ does not teach as much as that Gospel preached by apostles!"


Sure I have told Brother Garrett.  It is the spiritual experience of the person of Christ that is the standard.  It does not insist on omitting faith in propositions, except where the effectual call may be made apart from the gospel, but emphasizes that faith has as it's object the actual content of gospel propositions, which is Christ Himself.  The direct revelation of Christ to the elect is the same fundamental experience of Christ as those effectually called under the preached gospel by the Apostles, though obviously much less knowledgeable in terms of the full N.T. revelation.

Brother Garrett stated:

"Jason does not accept the idea that there is such a thing as an "instrumental cause."  To him, the instrumental cause is the same as the efficient cause.  But, this is just plain ignorance, wilful or otherwise.  By his reasoning he must say that God is not the efficient cause of a believers conversion!  His reasoning says that God cannot be the efficient cause of conversion since the Gospel is an instrument in affecting it.  The Gospel is the instrumental cause and the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause, just as the oldest Calvinists, including Baptists, have maintained.  But, Jason condemns them all, claiming to have superior understanding of these things than they had."

This is not correct.  I grant that the gospel is the instrumental cause of gospel conversion, and that God is the efficient cause of it.  What Garrett does not seem to always view clearly is that the gospel is only an instrument to faith in the gospel, it is not an instrument to spiritual life, which he even concedes is caused only by the Spirit.  The real claim of Garrett is that faith in the gospel as preached by man is always an instrumental cause of the effectual call, which was denied by the LCF by appeal to John 3:3-8.

Brother Garrett stated:

"He has also affirmed that this knowledge CANNOT come through the Gospel as preached by apostles, but can only come through the Gospel as preached by Christ.  He denies the omnipotence of God when he says that God cannot make the preaching of apostles to be as effective as the preaching of Christ.  He says this in spite of the fact that the Scriptures say that Christ preached through prophets and apostles, as I have shown."

My point has always been that saving trust in Christ is trust in His person by the Spirit of God, not in the propositions about His person that may attend the spiritual experience of the effectual call.  I have never denied that Christ may reveal Himself with the preached gospel, but that the preached word is not a sufficient condition of the revelation of Christ, which plainly Brother Garrett must believe.  It is not an issue of either the preaching of the Apostles or Christ's self-revelation, but that only the self-revelation of Christ can make gospel preaching efficacious to conversion.  Also, the preaching of Christ by men is not the basis of the effectual call, but the Spirit is the sole basis, as without it, as without love, preaching is vain, religion just a show, as the old hymn states.

I believe this is sufficient for this entry, I may take up the remainder of the arguments of Brother Garrett in a future entry.

Garrett on the Redundancy of Missionaries Part 2

Brother Garrett stated:

"But let us notice the problems with this view.

Problems with this view

1)  It is not supported by Scripture
2)  It is not supported by the London Confession
3)  It makes apostles of all the saints 
4)  It makes Gospel preaching unnecessary
5)  It makes Paul's teaching in Romans 10 false"

Brother Garrett summarizes his objections to the view of the effectual call he ascribes to Sylvester Hassell, David Pyles, and myself.

I want to point out first, that his criticism of this view of the effectual call is inchoate because this view is nothing more than he himself believes that the efficient power of regeneration is by the Spirit alone.  His true divergence from this view is his insistence that the power of the Spirit only works by the gospel as preached by man.

However, it is clear that the Scripture presents the effectual call by the spirit as a call that may be separate from the gospel as preached by man in John 3:3-8, and that the LCF plainly grants this by using this passage as a proof text of effectual calling apart from the gospel as preached by man in the footnote to section 3 of Chapter 10 of the LCF.  So, his points (1) and (2) above are clearly and incontrovertibly false.

Next, point (3) is fundamentally false because the requirement of Apostleship was that the Apostle must have physically seen Christ.  This point confuses a spiritual perception of the person of Christ by the Spirit with a physical perception of Christ by the physical senses, which does not qualify the general saints as Apostles.  

Besides this fundamental difference, Brother Garrett is unclear in objecting to this view because he himself must believe that unless Jesus by the Spirit resurrects man to new life, the good news as delivered by man would fall on the natural ears of men and not spiritual ears.  Brother Garrett seems to be blind to the implications of Jesus' statement that only those with spiritual ears can hear, and only those who have been previously taught by the Father can embrace the gospel (John 6:45).  How can this text be understood if hearing the gospel, even as preached by Jesus, was the basis of the effectual call?  This text so clearly establishes that belief and faith in the gospel are evidences, not the efficeint cause of spiritual life.  

The central error of Garrett is not realizing that his objection to this view can only be sustained if he proves that the Bible and the LCF are incorrect that the effectual call may not be apart from the gospel as preached by man in N.T. times. 

Points (4) and (5) above have been overthrown in part one.  The first half of part one debunks the facile claim of (4), and (5) is overthrown in my analysis of Romans 10:14-21 in the latter half, in which it is observed that Brother Garrett's appeal to Romans 10:14 to establish the possible salvation of the truly unevangelized is opposite the point of Paul in this passage.  The Gentiles are not damned because they are unevangelized but shown to be damned because they reject the gospel and truth of God from nature.  The Jews are not damned because they do not believe Paul's gospel, but they do not believe Paul's gospel because they are damned (Romans 10:16, 19, and 21).  This is the central point, which shows by logical consequence that the gospel as preached by Paul revealed life and damnation; revelation of the purpose of God to life in those clothed in the righteousness of God in the purpose of God before the world was (Romans 1:17).

Also, Brother Garrett seems to take this view to exclude the idea that Christ reveals Himself spiritually through the gospel or with the gospel.  This does not follow.  Therefore, objecting to this view on the basis of many texts that speak of the work of the Spirit with or through the gospel as preached by man does not successfully refute the idea that Christ may be revealed apart from the gospel, as in John 3:3-8, and even if the texts did prove that, they would render the Bible contradictory on John 3:3-8.

This view simply insists that Christ may not only be revealed through the gospel as preached by man, which is in keeping with the LCF, Gill, and, plainly, the Scripture from John 3:3-8.  It does not argue that Christ may not reveal Himself through the gospel, of course, as many of the texts Brother Garrett references establish.

Therefore when Garrett stated,

"These verses affirm that preachers preach the Gospel "with the Holy Ghost," and thus with the power of God, and this is sufficient to reveal Christ."

he does not successfully refute the Primitive Baptist position, which is that the Holy Ghost alone is the sufficient condition for revealing Christ, though this may and often does occur with the gospel, especially in the N.T. era, as in Acts 13:48.  The gospel is not the efficient cause of revealing Christ; only the Spirit can do this - therefore, it is only proper to refer to the Spirit as the sufficient condition for regeneration as demonstrated by John 3:3-8.  Now, the real question is, how can Brother Garrett claim this cannot occur apart from the gospel as preached by man when John Gill and the LCF plainly allowed that it not only can occur but does (albeit extraordinarily)?

Brother Garrett quotes Bob Ross:

"Brother Bob Ross, in his book "The History and Heresies of Hardshellism," wrote the following in chapter six:

Is the Word Spoken by Christ More Powerful Than
Other Inspired Revelation?

According to various Hardshell sources, the new birth (regeneration) is performed by the direct Word of Christ, spoken to the "dead alien sinner;" allegedly, there is power in that Word, but there is no such power in, with, through, or by the Written Word or preached Word, according to this view."

Bob Ross, and Brother Garrett, seem to misunderstand that the "word" "spoken" by Christ is other than an expression of the Spirit's work in regeneration, whether it is the Spirit's efficient work in contexts where the gospel is preached, immediately converting and delivering the reborn, as in James 1:18 (the early disciples were expressly born again unto gospel truth that they might be a firstfruit), or as the unmediated, effectual call of the infant or the mentally incompetent, per John 3:3-8.  It is not spoken, physical language as men might communicate, but simply an effectual, resurrecting power enacted on those called from spiritual death.  The life caused immediately exercises trust in the person of Christ they perceive by the spirit (1 Cor. 2:9,10), and immediately embraces whatever degree of mediated gospel truth that may be attendant to this call that is absolutely fundamental to the gospel and the spiritual perception of His person, such as 2 John 1:7 (as well as truths that this truth presupposes and makes significant, such as the state of condemnation, the Holiness of God, etc.).  

More N.T. knowledge than this is not intrinsically salvific in terms of the effectual call (not that more than this is not salvific in terms of growing in grace).  The most basic knowledge that all the elect have at regeneration as seen in John 17:3, is the intimate, personal, and fully spiritual knowledge/experience of the person of Christ, as a man may "know" his wife in a sexual sense, as the Song of Solomon focuses on this intimacy between Christ and the elect.

So it is clear that Bob Ross falsely views the idea of the "direct speaking" of Christ as a quickening separate from the quickening of the Spirit he even acknowledges in regeneration.  Bob Ross seems to also falsely depict this view in that the effectual call may not be "with" the gospel as preached by man.  No Primitive Baptist argues that God may not effectually call the elect under the sound of the gospel, they argue (1) that God also effectually calls apart from the gospel as preached by man as in John 3:3-8, and (2) that even when God effectually calls his children under the sound of the gospel, it is obviously the Spirit alone that can possibly cause spiritual life in that first instant of life from the dead.

Again, as I have often stated, Ross and Garrett assert an "instrumentality" to the gospel in the effectual call that can only pertain to the faith and repentance that are the results of the work of the Spirit.  Given that they do not deny that only the Spirit is instrumental to spiritual life, it is a misnomer to refer to the gospel as "instrumental" to the spiritual life that is caused by Spirit alone.

What they appear to do is insist on an absolute, outward standard of faith and repentance that are consequent to regeneration that is indefensible in view of elect infants, Matt. 21:16, David's trust in God upon his mother's breast, John 3:3-8, or Peter's denial of Christ.

One other thing, it is ridiculous to use Sarrels as representative of the Primitive Baptists.  Primitive Baptist orthodoxy is shown by the Fulton Confession.

Brother Garrett quoted Bob Ross:

"The position of the Baptists who wrote the London Confession of 1644 [articles 14, 15] and the London Confession of 1689 [articles 10, 14] is rejected by the Hardshells, as both of those Confessions conjoin the Gospel, or Word, and the Spirit, creating the immediate, simultaneous repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ by the sinner."

Bob Ross shows his bias here.  The LCF only conjoins the Spirit and Word in the "ordinary" method of God's effectual call.  It is clear he dishonestly omits that the Confession clearly supports in section 3 of chapter 10 the view that God effectually calls his elect apart from the gospel as preached by man, even in New Testament times.  Their scriptural support is cited as John 3:3-8, which destroys Ross' claims.

Also, Ross is guilty of misrepresenting orthodox Primitive Baptist views of the LCF, as seen by the Fulton footnotes.  Orthodox Primitive Baptists did not object to the LCF conjoining Word and Spirit, save in clarifying that the Spirit alone is the cause of spiritual life, and faith and repentance the Spirit's effect of this life, which is the view of Garrett and Ross and the emphasis of the confession itself in chapter 10, section 2 (which the Fulton brethren made plain as the basis of their clarification).

Brother Garrett quoted Bob Ross:

"This theory gives precedence of power to the spoken words of Christ, which He supposedly speaks directly to the individual.  Notice that the "speaking," according to Beebe, PRECEDES the "hearing" and the "life."  This would mean that Christ speaks to the "dead alien sinner" BEFORE the sinner is "alive."  Therefore, the Word of Christ is addressed to the "dead," yet the Hardshells object to the Baptist position that the Gospel, or Word, is to be preached to the "dead," and is accompanied by the Holy Spirit in pursuance of God's sovereign purpose in effectual calling."

Primitive Baptists do not object to preaching to the dead, as they all plainly grant that they may, for all they know, preach to the spiritually dead.  No one knows certainly who has or has not been effectually called.  Some Primitive Baptists over the past century have opposed preaching the gospel on an inchoate basis.  What they meant to say is that they did not preach the gospel from the basis that unless they did preach, men would be certainly damned as a consequence, as who could know that of a certainty?  

No Primitive Baptist minister has ever denied that they have a duty to preach the gospel wherever they felt that God had impressed them to preach on the basis of God's command to them alone.  

No Primitive Baptist would deny that it is possible that God has effectually called men under the sound of their preaching, according to the sovereign pleasure of God.  Primitive Baptists are not logically opposed to preaching to the dead because they do not know who is spiritually dead.

What they mean to say, and have said in the past century by God-called ministers like Sonny Pyles in his sermon I noted last month, "To Whom Do We Preach and Where", is that gospel ministers ought to appeal to the spiritual inner man wherever they preach, even among the dead.  Preaching cannot be addressed to the inveterate, natural man because the carnal mind is enmity against God (Romans 8:7), and the things of the gospel are spiritually discerned.  The Primitive Baptists have only meant to say what Christ said, "He that hath an ear, let him hear."

Brother Garrett quoted Bob Ross:

"According to the Scriptures, Jesus preached the Gospel (Luke 4:16-21).  Is the Gospel a part of the "WORDS" spoken by Christ which are "SPIRIT" and "LIFE"?  Is this not the SAME Gospel that was preached by Peter, Paul, and the Apostles -- the "Words" of Christ which are "SPIRIT" and "LIFE"?  Is not this SAME Gospel recorded in the Scriptures by the INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit?  Is not this Gospel "the WORD that goeth forth out of My mouth" (Isa. 55:11)?  Is this Word void of spirit and life in its SPIRIT-INSPIRED WRITTEN FORM?"

The resurrecting power of Christ was obviously not directed to all those to whom Christ preached.  Christ preached to many who he had no intention of quickening, manifestly.  So what is Ross' point?  The quickening power of Christ was only directed to those he intended to quicken, which was plainly discrete from those to whom he generally preached.  When Christ did quicken, he did so by the power of the Spirit, the words were not instrumental to the power of the spirit, even as the power of the spirit was not mediated by spoken language in the healing of Jairus' daughter and many other miracles that Christ performed.

Besides all this, it is not the Primitive Baptist view that God does not effectually call under the sound of the gospel.  The PB view is that the effectual call is by the Spirit alone in terms of the cause of spiritual life, whether the gospel is present or not, as it can plainly be absent according to John 3:3-8.

Brother Garrett quoted Bob Ross:

"Bob wrote:

"Hardshells are very "short" of any knowledge of what the Lord spoke to them, where He spoke it, and when He spoke it."

This is a silly jab, as there are plenty of people across all Christian denominations that cannot point to a specific point and time when they first believed in Jesus, having always believed in him, which lends credibility to the PB view rather than the farcical view of Bob Ross that such folks could only have been regenerated when they were emboldened by the Spirit to kneel before the front altar in open confession.

All Bob Ross succeeded in doing is overthrowing a straw man of the Primitive Baptist view of the effectual call, or, possibly, some aberrant views of so-called Primitive Baptists of the last century, like Sarrels.  He did not even seem to understand the historic position, much less "overthrow" it.  Christ's "speaking" and the work of the Spirit are synonymous concepts; both refer to the resurrecting power of God, which may occur with the gospel, or, as in John 3:3-8, apart from it.

Garrett on the Redundancy of Missionaries

Brother Garrett discusses (here) that he takes views I, David Pyles, and Sylvester Hassell espouse(ed) on the effectual call as a middle position between what he takes to be the original position of Old Baptists and the modern Primitive Baptist view.

The title of Brother Garrett's post, "Missionaries not needed?", essentially accuses this position, as he wants to understand it, of rendering the function of Missionaries as redundant.  This accusation is simply one that asserts hyper-Calvinism of Primitive Baptists.  The idea is that since individuals can be effectually called apart from the gospel as preached by man, it renders Missionaries and the preaching of the gospel unnecessary to eternal salvation.

There are many problems with this accusation.  First, Brother Garrett seems to be blind to the problem that even his own view of the effectual call is implicitly "hyper-Calvinistic" by his own standard.  As we have pointed out numerous times in numerous posts, Brother Garrett believes, inconsistently with his claim of gospel "instrumentality", that the Spirit alone is the efficient cause of the effectual call.  The place of the gospel, even in his view of effectual calling, is one that reveals the work of the spirit immediately after (logically) the Spirit solely effects life.  The gospel is not instrumental at all to this direct work of creation - ex nihilo - at the moment in which the divine first touches carnal man in resurrecting power.

The fact that Brother Garrett insists that God imparts life only in contexts in which the man-preached gospel is being delivered, and that the effectual call includes the immediate fruits of the Spirit's work in gospel faith and repentance, does not logically make the gospel "instrumental" to the Spirit's efficient work.  This term of "instrumentality" is a misnomer, even in his view, as it is only "instrumental" to faith and repentance, not the spirit's work that necessarily antedates the fruit of the spirit's work.  The Primitive Baptists do not deny that the gospel is instrumental to faith and repentance, though they do not limit the gospel to the gospel as preached by man.

Now, Brother Garrett is not prepared to argue that God has never called men apart from a man-preached gospel.  Even admitting this possibility at all, which he must or controvert the framers of the LCF and John Gill in their understanding of John 3:3-8, establishes that God has called men without any means whatsoever, as Gill states plainly in his commentary on Romans 10:14.

It is clear, therefore, as Brother Garrett must allow, that the central truth that God is not limited to eternally save man through a man-preached gospel, establishes what he takes to be "hyper-Calvinism" (besides the fact that Brother Garrett's view of "gospel instrumentality" denies any instrumentality to the efficient cause of life).  Brother Garrett himself would be judged as a "hyper-Calvinist" by simply being a Calvinist in the erroneous judgment of many Arminians, though even they are blind to the logical implications and incompatibility of prevenient grace with the moral basis of the "island of righteousness" that must logically exist, contrary to grace, in those that end up choosing to be saved.

This brings us to the real central problem of Brother Garrett's objection.  The ultimate basis that Christians must be in touch with for the motivation of preaching the gospel is the obligation of doing so simply because God has commanded the gospel to be preached.  Preaching the gospel does not rest on the estimation of man as to how effective it will be.  It does not rest on the idea that God effectually calls through the gospel because God may not effectually call through every presentation of the gospel, even in Brother Garrett's view.

The irrationality of Brother Garrett's objection is the implicit notion that the only legitimate basis for Missionary work or preaching the gospel is the idea that God eternally saves men only through the man-preached gospel.  This is a silly claim because the foundation of preaching the gospel is the command of God alone.  The objection that Primitive Baptist soteriology removes the logical basis of preaching the gospel is a facile claim.  The basis of preaching the gospel has always been the command of God, as it was to Jonah who fled from his duty because of his estimation of Ninevah.

In a real sense, the debate over the role of the man-preached gospel in salvation is irrelevant to the duty of Christians to preach it.  Primitive Baptists who have argued and argue that it is not the duty of Christians to preach on the rooftops what Jesus taught the disciples, have erred from the Scripture.  It is pathetically unscriptural to oppose so facile a claim of Brother Garrett's by arguing that it is not the duty of the Christian to preach the gospel wherever there is opportunity.

Therefore, even simply considering Brother Garrett's title to his post alone, his article fails to successfully argue against Primitive Baptist views of the utility of the gospel in the effectual call.  Primitive Baptists are presently preaching the gospel across the world in India, the Philippines, Russia, Africa, and Mexico, so there is de facto proof of the erroneous nature of Brother Garrett's claims.

Brother Garrett stated:

"I believe that this position of Elder Hassell represents a middle position between today's Hardshells and the position of the Old Baptists prior to the rise of the Hardshells in the early 19th century.  The position of most Hardshells, since the days of Hassell, has been to affirm that only a few of the elect will hear the Gospel and believe in Jesus, and that believing in Jesus is not necessary for final salvation.  Some Hardshells today are seemingly going back to the position of Hassell and it is hoped that all will.  However, going back to the view of Hassell, though better than today's neo-Hardshell view, nevertheless only goes halfway back to the original view of the Old Baptists who endorsed the Philadelphia and London Baptist confessions.  Further, it is a serious error, one fraught with dangerous consequences"


Brother Garrett misrepresents modern Primitive Baptists.  He takes their opposition to "belief in Jesus for final salvation" as opposition to Hassell's view that all of the elect will believe in Jesus immediately by the effectual call.  Modern Primitive Baptists are opposing "belief in Jesus for final salvtion" in terms of a man-preached gospel, not that the elect will not be effectually called or will not spiritually perceive and believe the person of Christ.  Brother Garrett mistakes the inchoate, confused, and ignorant explanations of some modern PB's as a unique position separate from Hassell, mine, or David Pyles, but it is simply the unlearned PB's from the past century that he mistakes as a position distinct from the historic Primitive Baptist position exemplified by the Fulton Confession.


Brother Garrett stated:


"There is no denying that Jesus preached the Gospel.  There is no denying that he personally preached the same Gospel to both elect and non-elect.  Further, there is no denying that Jesus revealed himself directly to certain men while he was on earth, both before and after his resurrection.  But, does Jesus still speak directly to people today?  Does he personally appear to people today as he did to the apostles?  Apparently the Apostle Paul did not believe so, for he says that God has ordained that men hear the Gospel through preachers."

Surely Brother Garrett concedes that Christ speaks directly today, but that he does so through the gospel; and that he must so appear or the gospel alone is just words.  This is the essential Primitive Baptist focus.  Now, whether Christ speaks today immediately apart from the gospel as preached by man, is a thing I, John Gill, and the LCF framers are willing to grant as possible from John 3:3-8.  What Brother Garrett falsely infers from Romans 10:14-17 is a standard of knowledge for faith beyond what is intrinsically salvific.  I insist that what is intrinsically salvific is the spiritual perception of Christ, but, of course, according to the degree of knowledge preached and revealed, it could embrace all true, gospel knowledge, even beyond what is intrinsically salvific, such as the truths of the TULIP over against Arminian doctrines.

I would like to consider Romans 10:14-21 carefully.

Romans 10:14-21 is a polemical defense of the truth of gospel belief in the face of the objections to this truth by unbelief and the fact that many were unevangelized.  It basically succinctly reiterates many of the basic elements of chapters 1-3 of Romans.


Notice that Paul queries rhetorically in Romans 10:18, 19, "But I say, Have they (unevangelized Gentiles) not heard?" and "But I say, Did not Israel know?"  These rhetorical questions of verses 18 and 19 answer the hypothetical objections Paul raised (as a man might reason) to object to the knowledge and assurance of eternal salvation by gospel confession in 10:9-13. These two texts, Romans 10:18 and 19, echo Romans 1 and 2 respectively.  Romans 10:14-17 contain a line of reasoning based on excusing natural men, as carnal men might object to the judgment of God against them for their unbelief in Christ.  Paul's objection to this line of reasoning is observed in Romans 10:18 and 19 by the use of "But I say" to preface those texts.  Romans 10:14's questions are rhetorically posed from the perspective of natural reasoning, as Paul does in Romans 3:3, 3:5, or 6:1.


Paul's answer to 10:14-17 in verse 16, 18, and 19 is unmistakable.  Hearing the audible gospel is not a sufficient condition for the effectual call and obedience (vs. 16), as Israel made plain, and that the essential gospel had already been preached to all men in nature, as Psalms 19:1-4 declare plainly, as there is no speech nor language where the "voice" of knowledge in nature of the eternal power and glory of God is not understood, so that men are without excuse, even if they are not preached to by men (vs. 18).


Paul is not arguing for the necessity of gospel preaching for eternal salvation in verse 14 and 15, but brings these ideas up as foreseen objections and excuses against belief in the gospel to which his answer is that the essence of the gospel is known by nature to the damnation of unevangelized unbelievers (Romans 1:20, 10:18).


The point is that deductions about the necessity of gospel preaching for eternal salvation from these texts is not the primary context.  The primary context is to those who would disregard the gospel as true on the basis that it had not been universally preached by man to all men for obedience, or that even those who had heard it, as Israel, did not all believe it.  This is the primary thought under consideration to which Paul contends that the essential gospel was apparent from nature beside the fact that Israel should embrace the gospel from the Old Testament alone.


Manifestly, if Paul stated that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing only by the word of God as preached by man, Paul seems to contradict himself to then state in the very next verse, "But I say, Have they not heard from nature?" Is he saying that saving faith is possible from nature alone, Brother Garrett??  Keep in mind that Paul quotes Psalm 19:4 verbatim in Romans 10:18.  This surely demonstrates that Paul did not isolate the word of God in the gospel he preached in terms of the judgment of God against unbelievers.  It is not that Paul is stating that his preaching is the only sufficient condition for salvation, which emphasis would imply from verse 18 the false view that men could be saved by the gospel and word of God through nature, but he is stating that his preaching is not the sufficient condition for damnation.  Unless God directly changed the affections of men, efficiently causing the new birth, the gospel as preached by Paul to the Jews availed nothing, but the Jews were just as damned after Paul preached to them than they were in their disbelief of the O.T. (Rom. 10:19,21).


Paul's main intention in this passage is reiterating the basis of God's judgment on unbelievers, whether by nature alone or by rejecting gospel preachers, as the Jews. The fact that some were not preached to by men made them no less of an unbeliever, even by the gospel testimony of nature.  


Clearly, the basis of the damnation of the unevangelized in Romans 1 and 10:18 is not that they did not hear the gospel as preached by man.  The basis of the damnation of the unevangelized is their moral wickedness and depravity in willfully rebelling against the glory and power of God revealed in the gospel of nature.  Brother Garrett illegitimately appeals to Romans 10:14 to assert that the heathen could be saved, if only they were preached to.  This, as we have seen, is not Paul's point, just as this is not his point in Romans 1, as Romans 10:14 evidences a line of reasoning that is not Paul's own.  Rather, as Paul clearly answers 10:14's hypotheticals in 10:18, the truly unevangelized would be damned regardless, as they reject the gospel of nature, evidencing their eternal damnation; they would just as assuredly reject Paul's gospel.  



One of the problems for Brother Garrett is that he wants to assume that because Paul seems to correlate hearing and believing the man-preached gospel (if we overlook the complications of the disunity of this view with Romans 10:18) with being effectually called and eternally saved, that the physical hearing of the gospel is instrumental to being effectually called.  It is still not instrumental in this fashion because even in contexts where the gospel is heard, it is Christ by the efficient power of the spirit alone that is instrumental to new life. This new life would, then, first embrace the spiritual loveliness of the person of Christ before embracing gospel propositions of men about this person they now perceive by faith's sight.

The gospel as preached by man further informs faith, so that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, even in the moment of regeneration; in this manner, Romans 10:17 does not exclude the effectual call.  I agree with Garrett that Romans 10:14-17 correlate the effectual call with hearing and believing the gospel, but the spiritual rebirth is still unmediated, it is the faith that it is mediated through the gospel whether immediately by the person of Christ or through a man-preached gospel, which both presuppose unmediated life.

These texts prove that gospel faith can be mediated through the gospel as preached by man, and that it is generally true that there is no spiritual life where the gospel is not believed (as James 1:18 proves this typicality in the N.T. era of the early disciples), yet, as Gill asserts, God may effectually call apart from the gospel as preached by man, and in fact does, as Gill and the LCF saw that John 3:3-8 proved.

So, it is apparent that even for Brother Garrett, Christ does and must "speak directly" to men before a man-preached gospel can be believed, even as those in John 5:38-40 would not believe in Christ because they had not been taught first inwardly by the Father.

Brother Garrett is inconsistent with his acknowledgement of the sole, efficient cause of the effectual call to argue against the necessity of the direct speaking of Christ or the Father which must precede faith.

Brother Garrett stated:

"If the view is correct that Christ preaches the Gospel personally to all the elect, then Paul would not have written these words:

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:  But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand."  (Rom. 15: 20, 21)

On these words Dr. Gill commented:

"...he chose rather to go to such Heathen nations, as were wholly without any knowledge of him; who had only the dim light of nature to guide them; had had no promises nor prophecies of the Messiah, nor so much as any hints, at least very distant ones, concerning him; and where as yet the sound of the Gospel bad not reached."But, if the heathen must have Christ to personally preach the Gospel to the heathen before Paul could have any success in preaching the same Gospel to them, then Paul could not categorically say that Christ was not known among the heathen."

The fact that the heathen to whom Paul preached were wholly without any knowledge of Christ could refer to direct, historical knowledge of the historical Christ, not that they did not spiritually know the spiritual person of Christ.  Or it could be that these specific heathen were not effectually called until Paul's ministry.  Brother Garrett seems to infer from these passages that all unevangelized lands or nations cannot even possibly be inhabited by effectually called individuals, which is a claim that Old Baptists disagreed with, as Gill entertains as possible that God could send an angel directly to the heathen, testifying to the gospel.  The fact is that the framers of the LCF granted that men could be called apart from the gospel as preached by man, though they claimed that such methods would be "extraordinary".

I will continue my rebuttal of Brother Garrett's article in a future entry.

Garrett's Comments 05-25-2012 Part 2

Part 2 of Brother Garrett's post (here):

Brother Garrett stated:

"They also did not receive certain new covenant blessings that believers do now.  Christians do have something "better" than what believers had under the old covenant, or under the law.  Christians enjoy greater revelation, a more abundant life in Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a superlative measure.  Christians have a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a better covenant, a better temple and worship, etc.  But, how does this fact prove that the Gospel is not a means in salvation?  How does the fact that old testament believers did not enjoy the same blessings as do Christians now prove that the Gospel is not a means?  Why use logic to prove such a proposition anyway?  Why not just state the bible verses that teach that those who do not hear and believe the Gospel are nevertheless saved?


Jason wrote:

"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."

But, what he says makes no sense.  It is somewhat unintelligible and incoherent.  For a man who bases so much on "logic" for his faith, it is surprising to see Jason make so many of these kind of arguments.  Jason can cite no Scripture that affirms the salvation of any of the heathen, so he must rely on the kind of tortured logic as given in the above words.  What does he mean by "stood apart from"?  I think he is making the same argument that he has made before, though he tries to state it in a different manner, which says:

If the Gospel is a means in salvation, then it must be the same Gospel, in degree of revelation.  Since the Gospel that was believed by Old Testament believers is different in degree from that which is believed by New Testament believers, therefore the Gospel cannot be a means.  We can put his argument into the form of the following syllogism.

1. For the Good News to be a means in salvation, it must be the same in degree for all the elect.
2. The Good News is not the same in degree for all the elect.
3. Therefore the Good News cannot be a means in salvation.But, where did Jason get his major premise?  Where does the Bible support it?  Jason asserts premise number one, and yet the Bible is against him on it.  This premise, or presupposition, is like so many other Hardshell premises that I have dealt with in my book on the Hardshells."


First, let it be noted that Brother Garrett understands me to be arguing that the gospel is not a means in the effectual call, as he states in the first paragraph quoted, "How does the fact that old testament believers did not enjoy the same blessings as do Christians now prove that the Gospel is not a means?"  However, this is not accurate.  What I am arguing is that the essential gospel is the direct teaching of the Father, as in John 6:45.  I have not argued that this direct, gospel teaching by the Father may not occur in conjunction with the gospel as preached by man.  I am only arguing that it is unjustified to insist that the effectual call may only occur as man preaches the gospel, as the LCF makes clear from John 3:3-8.

Also, note that Brother Garrett is unclear in what sense he understands the gospel as preached by man to be "instrumental" in regeneration, as I also have previously pointed out.  He is not saying that the gospel as preached by man is instrumental apart from the spirit of God.  If the efficient cause of the effectual call is the sole agent in regeneration to begin this process, which he must believe, the gospel as preached by man or God is not "instrumental" to being made alive - only the efficient cause is the instrument.  The content of the gospel is only the object of faith in those made alive by the Spirit - it is not the instrumental cause in any sense, even in Brother Garrett's view.  Calling the gospel a "cause" of regeneration is inaccurate - because only the Spirit is the fundamental cause, even if the gospel, as preached by God or man, is integral to the overall process.

Brother Garrett accuses me of a lack of clarity, but what he is actually saying is that my meaning is not clear, not my words.  The words I state, "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", are clear words.  Whatever distinction is to be made between Old and New Covenant believers is made in Hebrews 11:13,39 and 40.  Brother Garrett's accusation that I am unclear reveals that he finds Paul unclear in these texts, as I simply reiterated Paul's words.

The saving degree of intellectual cognizance of faith in the elect is fundamentally equal among them.  However, this base line of faith is lower than the level of the knowledge of the faith of N.T. era believers as compared to O.T. believers.  They did not have equal propositional knowledge about Christ.  Now, if this cognizance is defined as it should be, which is a rudimentary, spiritual perception of the the person of Christ, the requirement of some gospel knowledge by direct revelation of God is absolute, as in John 17:3.

What has really been suggested, is that Garrett is forced to accept this spiritual standard of gospel knowledge to accommodate Hebrew 11:13, 39 and 40, and the logical consequence of admitting that the effectual call is by the efficient cause of the Spirit alone renders the acceptance of any gospel knowledge as the effect of the cause of the spirit's work.  Brother Garrett, manifestly, cannot insist on a requirement for O.T. saints of a formulaic, confession of faith that requires a confession with the mouth of the historical Jesus.  It is an incontrovertible fact that they were effectually called apart from confessing the historical Jesus, or from entering the literal, N.T. era church with a N.T. understanding of Christ.

Some might say, "but, of course, that had not been revealed".  This is an irrelevant point because they were in vital union.  There are not two planes of salvific knowledge, such as the "before Christ" plane and the "after Christ" plane.  Brother Garrett will not admit this Dispensationalism.  He has already made statements that reveal a commitment to the harmony of salvific knowledge of Old and New Testament saints.

The gospel that was embraced in faith by Old Testament saints was essentially the same as New Testament believers.  It was the good news that salvation is of the Lord, whether this gospel was revealed directly by God or through what had been revealed in propositional revelation at that time.

Brother Garrett asserted, "Jason can cite no Scripture that affirms the salvation of any of the heathen, so he must rely on the kind of tortured logic as given in the above words.  What does he mean by "stood apart from"?" I am not asserting the certain salvation of the heathen.  All I am observing from the Old Testament saints is the primacy of spiritual knowledge of the person of Christ through type and shadow over against the clearer knowledge of the person of Christ in New Testament times.

Brother Garrett's summary of my argument is incorrect.  He summarizes:

"1. For the Good News to be a means in salvation, it must be the same in degree for all the elect.
2. The Good News is not the same in degree for all the elect.
3. Therefore the Good News cannot be a means in salvation.But, where did Jason get his major premise?  Where does the Bible support it?  Jason asserts premise number one, and yet the Bible is against him on it.  This premise, or presupposition, is like so many other Hardshell premises that I have dealt with in my book on the Hardshells."

I have not argued that gospel knowledge is not integral to the effectual call.  I have already overthrown any meaningful sense in which this knowledge can be logically considered "instrumental" to the cause of spiritual life.  What I have argued is that the knowledge integral to the effectual call, or what the elect are effectually called to grasp is the spiritual perception of the person of Christ.  I am glad to see that Brother Garrett repudiates that the gospel must not be the same in degree for all the elect, and that he concedes that the knowledge that Old Testament saints were effectually called to grasp by faith was the spiritual Christ as their redeemer.  This has been my entire point.  It is obvious that O.T. and N.T. saints were separated by knowledge, yet their vital union with Christ was no less secure.  The fundamental basis of eternal security is spiritual knowledge of Christ by the Spirit of God, and it is this knowledge which is fundamental to all of the elect.

Brother Garrett stated:

"Jason is guilty of double speak when he affirms, on one hand, that all the elect will have the Gospel preached to them by Christ himself, and become Gospel believers by such preaching, and then on the other hand attack the idea that only Gospel believers will inherit eternal life!  Truly "the legs of the lame are not equal."  (Prov. 26: 7) "

Note how Brother Garrett accuses of "doublespeak" when it is his ignorance that prevents him from understanding me.  I entreat the reader to interpret Garrett's claims of my "doublespeak", as Garrett's tacit admission that he does not understand.  Evidently, anything that Garrett does not understand must be necessarily contradictory.  Perhaps he should just ask honest questions before jumping to the conclusion that what I state is unintelligible or contradictory.  What I state may be unclear by my own failure or Brother Garrett's.  It is the idea that only those who have been preached to by man will inherit eternal life that has been attacked as an unjustified conclusion, not that all of the elect are not gospel believers essentially by the preaching of Christ Himself.

Brother Garrett stated:

"But, as Jerry Falwell once said, "if you can have salvation and not know it, then you can lose it and not miss it."  So very true!  Though Jason wants to distance himself from the"Hollow Log" view of regeneration (see my posting on this here), he nevertheless is often seen reverting to it.  Jason is obviously reasoning from the premise that "propositional knowledge" is not a conjunct of regeneration ("vital union" with Christ), is not one of the things that "accompany salvation."  (Heb. 6: 9)"

Again, I did not assert a calculus to represent precisely the relationship of being in a state of grace and full intellectual awareness of the state of grace.  I fully acknowledge that intellectual awareness of being of God "accompanies salvation".  All I said is that it does not follow logically that vital union with Christ is metaphysically predicated on epistemic awareness, though some degree of epistemic awareness of vital union certainly is the direct result of the metaphysical union of the regenerate with Christ by the umbilical cord of faith, wrought by the spirit alone, to embrace the person of Christ as revealed by the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:9,10).  Rather, epistemic awareness is an effect of vital union.  In this way it is unjustified to say that belief itself is the means by which the elect enter into the mystical union betwixt Christ and the Church.  Belief manifests and evidences what was certain since the foundation of the world; namely, the everlasting love of God toward his beloved.

The idea that I am giving support to a "hollow log" view of regeneration is unfounded.  A hollow log view of regeneration is that there are no fruits of the spirit evidenced in the regenerate.  Admitting that in instances of time, there may be a lack of fruit evidenced in one truly regenerate does not prove a hollow log view of regeneration, as Brother Garrett would have to conclude a hollow log view of regeneration, if it were so defined, in Peter's instance of denial.

What I am discussing is effectively how Peter, or any regenerate person, could have been or be in vital union with Christ and yet fail to show, even in a moment of time, consistent evidence with what they truly believe.  In such instances of outward unbelief, as in any sin, the regenerate are bearing fruit inconsistent with the true belief of the heart they have as regenerated individuals.

What is the basis of the vital union in this outward instance of unbelief?  Surely it is the true belief of the heart.  This true belief of the heart normally is attested in open confession, but not in Peter's instance of denial.  It is in this elementary manner that confession and outward evidences of true faith are seen as evidences. They are not, themselves, true faith or the basis of true faith, though they surely follow, at some point and in the natural course of time as fruit will be produced by a tree that naturally yields such.

Brother Garrett stated:

"How can one have "knowledge" without "propositions"?  And, how can one have "faith"(belief) without knowledge?  

Jason has argued, when forced into logical corners, that all the elect have Gospel faith, for all hear the voice of Christ, Christ directly preaching the Gospel to them, and yet here he argues that it is wrong to assert that Gospel propositions are received into the mind when one hears Christ preach to him personally.  He is a classic example of people who"oppose themselves."  (Acts 18: 6: II Tim. 2: 25)"

I have addressed these kinds of questions many times.  The assumption that knowledge presupposes propositions of language is wholly unfounded.  The objection to Brother Garrett's assumption is both scriptural and rational.

From Scripture it is apparent that non-propositional, spiritual knowledge is contrasted with propositional knowledge. Examine 1 Corinthians 2:1-10.  Those that crucified Christ in verse 8 certainly were aware of the propositional import of the gospel, yet Paul states that they were ignorant of the wisdom of God, which is a mystery to the rational mind, as "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man..." Obviously, if gospel propositions are knowledge, Paul is wrong to say that the princes of this world were ignorant.  And if the gospel propositions were knowledge, Paul is wrong to say that, "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard", for manifestly, those that are regenerate do see and hear the gospel.

The revelation of the hidden mystery of God is not by way of the physical senses.  This is plainly the dichotomy made by Paul.  It is purely spiritual, as Paul makes crystal clear in verse 10 and 14.  Gospel propositions are not instrumental to the spiritual revelation of Christ directly to the heart of the unregenerate, nor can they be because they are spiritually discerned (2:14).  How can Garrett avoid the logical implications of this passage for the primacy of the Spirit in the effectual call, and that the efficient cause necessarily precedes faith and repentance?

Paul writes mystically in this passage, fully delineating the spiritual from the physical.  His delineation cannot be escaped by Garrett.  Spiritual knowledge is plainly contrasted to physical, propositional knowledge.  So, for better or worse, Brother Garrett should subordinate his Enlightenment view of knowledge to the Scripture, and acknowledge the mystical element of faith.

Rationally, I have cited Alvin Plaintinga's work in, "Warranted Christian Belief" and "Warrant and Proper Function", to show that knowledge need not be propositional, as Plantinga argues that certain beliefs arise directly and are occasioned from experience rather than as a result of critical analysis (here - halfway down the post).

Brother Garrett seems to want to equate gospel propositions of language with the spiritual perception of Christ in the new birth.  They are not equal, though consistent to one already regenerated, as gospel propositions may be void of the spirit just as propositions of the law that killeth.  They are plainly distinguished in 1 Corinthians 2, as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard.  Spiritual knowledge is separate from the letter of the gospel, which may be presented in enticing words of man's wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:4).

The experience of Christ in the new birth is an experience by which belief in Christ arises immediately from the experience of Him.  Propositions are not required as an intermediate expression of the experience just as I do not form a mental proposition of the fact that I perceive the monitor in front of me before I give mental assent to the fact.  Propositional language is an intermediary between experience and the communication of it.  There is no rational basis to insist on the requirement of propositional language in direct visual or spiritual experience of the individual in order for a claim of knowledge.  If this were not the case, memory and sensory claims of states of affairs could hardly be counted as instances of knowledge.

So, the spiritual perception of Christ alone is a sufficient basis for the object of faith in regeneration.  More than this might be entailed as corollary to this experience.  All those things known but suppressed in man may come to the fore in the perception of Christ and God, such as the condemned state of man, the Holiness of God's character, and the appropriateness of worship of the only true God in Jesus Christ.  The principal thing missing in man is not the perception of God, as that is known by him, according to Paul in Romans 1.  It is the love and trust of the God that is missing, so that the proper affections are misaligned.  Once the noetic effects of sin are repaired by the love of God shed abroad in the heart, man embraces the ever-present God, so that the function of Christ's appearance at regeneration through the Spirit is to the end of re-creating man's affections with a heart of flesh to embrace what was known all along but suppressed.

Brother Garrett stated:

"It is possible to believe in the reality of a future event, however, a thing which Jason's logic would seem to deny.  Since the new heavens and the new earth, and my resurrection to immortality, are not yet realities, Jason's logic would say that I cannot know it.  Since he uses the word "real" in the sense of "already existing," then he has no foundation to his knowledge of what is yet future."

This is an odd claim.  I can know of the future reality of heaven and bodily resurrection of the elect upon the basis of the authority of Scripture.  This authority can be logically demonstrated in a myriad of ways once God's existence has been demonstrated rationally.  As for my personal hope of being of the elect, I believe by faith that I am one for whom Christ died.  My personal salvation is not mathematically certain, but my hope rests on what Christ has objectively accomplished (on the authority of Scripture).  It is only by working out my own salvation with fear and trembling that I can be personally assured of salvation, but I cannot be objectively certain of my personal salvation apart from laying hold of that which, I hope, I am apprehended of in Christ Jesus.

Brother Garrett stated:

"Further, the verses I cited in my previous posting, about "winning Christ," and "winning the prize," and "being found in him" at the last, do also show that an act in time determines future condition."

This is inaccurate to put it this way.  Brother Garrett concedes that God's decree of election is not contingent on the events of time.  This is all that is necessary to prove that the events of time are contingent on God's eternal decrees.  An act of time does not determine the future condition when the act of time itself was determined before the foundation of the world.  The decrees of God determine the events of time and all future conditions.  Why obfuscate this with the idea that future conditions are determined by acts in time, as if this is the entirety of the truth of the Scripture?  Future conditions are brought about through acts in time, such as the death of Christ on the cross, but this is an incomplete summary.  Time hinges on eternity in what God has decreed, so that it is quite incorrect to partially represent the matter by Brother Garrett's incomplete statements.  One wonders why Brother Garrett desires to misrepresent the whole counsel of God; perhaps it is to not appear like a "hyper-Calvinist"?