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)
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment