Friday, June 15, 2012

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"?

No comments:

Post a Comment