Brother Garrett stated (here):
"Here brother Jason asserts classical Hardshellism. He says that those who do not believe the Gospel ("receive the promises of the Gospel") are not eternally damned. Yet, Dr. Gill taught no such thing. The 1689 London Confession taught no such thing. The only ones who have taught such are the Hardshells and Universalists. In previous postings, Jason has admitted that all those who hear the Gospel and reject it are lost. But, he will not say that all who have died without hearing the Gospel are lost."
If Brother Garrett means by, 'all who have died without hearing the gospel (or promises of the gospel)', the gospel as preached by man, then he is plainly in error, as not only were the O.T. saints, like Abraham, and infants not converted to the gospel by man, both the 1689 London Confession and John Gill plainly allowed for the "extraordinary" means by which God can, and 'sometimes does' (Gill's words on Romans 10:14) reveal Himself directly to man, apart from the gospel as delivered by man:
"Moreover, this is to be, understood of the ordinary way and means of believing; for though God can, and sometimes does work by other means, and even without any..."
If Brother Garrett means by, 'all who have died without hearing the gospel', the gospel directly preached to the regenerate by the inward revelation of the Father (John 6:45), then, as I have before stated, I, and all Primitive Baptists agree that all are damned that are not effectually called, and have not the inward testimony of the person of Christ, which fully accords with special revelation.
Stephen Garrett is eager to affirm what he takes to be "classical hardshellism" in my words, but he illegitimately defines this as a view of regeneration that opposes knowledge - it opposes the absolute insistence of the necessity of the creative, direct word to life being mediated in propositions of physical language, as John 3:3-8 plainly demonstrate (and such a view of this text as the Primitive Baptists advocate was accepted by the framers of the 1689 LCF and John Gill).
I will not say that all who are/were apart from the gospel as preached by man are eternally damned because the scripture does not assert the absolute certainty of damnation apart from a man-preached gospel. Neither the LCF or John Gill stated that every single man that was not preached to by man was certainly eternally damned. Stephen Garrett errs from Old Baptists who did not state as certain what is clearly possible from John 3:3-8 per section 3 of the "Effectual Call" chapter of the LCF, and Gill's commentary on Romans 10:14.
The "gospel" (if one uses this term in reference to what is spiritually revealed in regeneration) absolutely necessary to eternal life in those that possibly exist or existed in heathen cultures is the spiritual perception of Christ in the new birth, but this spiritual knowledge of Christ is not fully equal to the historical knowledge of Christ that N.T. believers enjoy; in the same way that O.T. believers died in faith, having not received the promise of Christ.
I am not certainly asserting the existence of such individuals. I am only allowing for the possibility of God working as He wills among the heathen. Brother Garrett errs in asserting the certain, universal damnation of those apart from the gospel declaration, which damns the infant, the mentally incompetent, and those apart from being outwardly called by the gospel. This is a plain contradiction of section 3 of chapter 10, "Of Effectual Calling", of the LCF and John Gill.
Why can't Brother Garrett show a modicum of moderation on this point?
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason says that not all who fail to hear the Gospel are lost, and yet, at other times, he has said that all the elect will hear the Gospel preached directly from the mouth of Jesus. Jason does not believe that the Scriptures teach that "those who do not receive the promises of God in the gospel in time are eternally damned." However, if Jesus preaches the Gospel to all the elect, then do they not all "receive" it? Further, if they hear the Gospel preached to them by the personal appearing of Christ and believe it, then they cannot be "heathen," and so Jason must agree that no heathen is saved."
Part of the confusion here is that Brother Garrett failed to understand that I was referring to the promises of God as delivered by men in the N.T. era. I agree with his description of my view here, but the spiritual perception of the person of Christ does not give the degree of clarity of the promise given in the gospel, as the gospel itself. This distinction of clarity in knowledge is the real subject of Hebrews (by which the New Covenant is superior to the Old), though it was the nature of the case for the Old Testament saints as opposed to the self-imposed ignorance of the Hebrew audience, Hebrews 11 is written to the shame of the Hebrew audience, as they of old were strong in faith with much less knowledge than the weak and wavering Hebrews to which Paul writes.
Brother Garrett stated:
"I do not see anything in these verses that prove that the heathen "who know not God and obey not the Gospel" will be saved. I do not see where they teach against the Gospel being a means in salvation."
I did not use Hebrews 11:13, 39-40 to assert the certain existence of heathen regenerates. What I used these texts to establish is that they plainly teach that there is a reception of the promises of God in the N.T. era that is not shared by O.T. era believers. That is what the texts plainly assert. This is a temporal distinction and inheritance of the N.T. era that believers must press into, which establishes the temporal exhortation of believers to enter the gospel rest of God in Hebrews 4.
Brother Garrett stated:
"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"?"
The point is that the gospel promises of the N.T. era are primarily epistemic in their significance. The clarity of knowledge between O.T. and N.T. believers proves the epistemic application of the gospel as revelation.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Brown wrote:
"So, it is not a chief problem of the "Hardshells" to explain how all of the elect inherit eternal rest apart from the same degree of gospel revelation, but a problem for Stephen Garrett who has to explain how Old Testament saints could have had eternal life when they died in faith without receiving the promises."
Here Jason repeats the argument he made in the previous incoherent citation. It is not logical. It is based upon anti-biblical presuppositions. It is not based on plain Scriptural citations. This is quite revealing. I have many times, in my book and in my blog writings, challenged the Hardshells to simply cite bible verses where their premises are stated. I have challenged the Arminians in the same manner in regard to Christians losing salvation. Where is the verse that says this in plain words? And, that don't rely upon inferences and deductions?"
Brother Garrett's insistence that the promises of God in the gospel are eternal promises of God plainly places the O.T. saints in a state of eternal damnation, as they did not receive these promises in life, as Moses failed to inherit the temporal promise of God of Canaan. Harmonizing Hebrews 11:13, 39-40 with Hebrews 4 proves that the rest of God is the promise of God in time, not simply eternity.
Now, Brother Garrett brought up the heathen in this context to infer their damnation. My point is that such inferences do not certainly follow from the epistemic focus of Hebrews. What follows is that no man has a rational hope of eternal heaven apart from the promises of God and embracing them in time. No more than this is certain.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Brown wrote:
"All the "hubbub" is because Brother Garrett misses the epistemic focus of Hebrews, as can be evidently seen from a consideration of Hebrews 11:13,39 and 40. The concern in Hebrews is not centrally about inheriting eternal life, but it is a call to professed believers to ensure that they have true belief, as there is no rational basis to hope for immortal glory by any that fail to embrace the promises of God in time. I take the thesis of Hebrews to be introduced in 2:1-4, and it is this theme that is central to this epistle. In this way, Brother Garrett's insistence on his interpretation fails to account for the application of the truth that only true believers inherit eternal life, which is to, "examine whether you be in the faith or not"."
This is more double speak. The book of Hebrews does not concern inheriting eternal life and yet is concerned about making sure that professing believers are genuine believers! What is the purpose of exhorting them to make sure they are "true blue" Christians? Is it not so that they might be eternally saved? How are these two things mutually exclusive as Jason supposes? Are they not rather joined together? Has Paul not already affirmed, in chapters 3 & 4, that "for Gospel believers only" is written over the entrance to the heavenly city and country, the antitypical promised land? Is not entering this "city" and"heavenly land" called "inheriting eternal life" in Scripture? Only Hardshells and Universalists want to separate entrance into eternal life from Gospel faith and repentance. They want to offer hope for salvation to those who are not Christians."
It is not "doublespeak". I said that Hebrews is not centrally about inheriting eternal life. I did not say that it is not about inheriting eternal life. Brother Garrett seems to fail to recognize that this epistle is written to the visible faith community to whom the promise of eternal life is already evident. Paul's focus is centrally about the quality of their faith, not the certain assertion of the absence or existence of their faith, which he, himself, does not know. I never said that a concern of the quality of their faith was a mutually exclusive concern with a concern of their actual eternal salvation, but I always correlated these myself.
It is evident from the fact that Paul does not know their actual state of grace, that he can only exhort his hearers to the temporal quality of faith that is consistent with eternal inheritance. Such an interpretive view is logical, as being ignorant of anyone's actual spiritual state, the only meaningful exhortation is to a quality of faith that is consistent with the scriptural definition of personal assurance of salvation to the end of eternal life. This approach also is incompatible with Garrett's lie that the motive is to offer hope of salvation to Christ-rejecting unbelievers. Christ-rejecting unbelievers have no biblical hope of eternal life.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Further double speak is seen in Jason's affirming that "there is no rational basis to hope for immortal glory" for any who fail to embrace the Gospel and yet constantly arguing that faith in the Gospel is not necessary for salvation."
A further falsehood; embracing the gospel is the only sufficient evidence to be confident of eternal life. However, this is not the same thing as saying that a true state of grace is inseparable from every full measure of discipleship and gospel enjoyment. Garrett seems incapable of understanding how these both can be logically asserted. Where is the "doublespeak" contradiction?
Brother Garrett stated:
""No rational hope"? What about any hope from Scripture? Quit relying upon reason! Take what the Scriptures say as the basis of your faith! Also, quit speaking by way of circumlocution and tell us forthwith - are those without "gospel knowledge" lost or not? Does their having no "basis to hope" for salvation mean that they will in fact be damned? Or, can some of those who have no "basis to hope" be nevertheless saved? "Shell down the corn" and just tell us plainly."
Rational hope from scripture, of course; "quit relying upon reason" is a nonsensical statement. Should we shut our Bibles, therefore? Quit falsely dichotomizing faith from reason, Brother Garrett, so you can hide in the self-created paradoxes of your dogma you confuse with scripture.
Certainly, those without a spiritual revelation of Christ in regeneration will be damned. However, the promises of God as delivered by men preaching the gospel does not prevent God from effectually calling as He pleases, so my "circumlocution" was due to allowing the scriptural effectual call of God apart from the word as preached by man, as in John 3:3-8.
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!"
Again, Brother Garrett confuses my attack on "only gospel believers will inherit eternal life", which is in terms of a gospel as preached by man, with an attack on any degree of spiritual knowledge that the regenerate must have as a result of the effectual call and the revealed Christ within.
Brother Garrett stated:
"When Paul speaks of "Today" he does not mean "entering Heaven today" but "hear his voice today." The text is "Today if you will hear his voice" and not "Today if you will enter into God's rest, city, and heavenly country." The message is, chiefly, "hear today and enter tomorrow." This does not mean that nothing is entered or enjoyed in initial conversion (rebirth), but that the focus of the Apostle, in talking about entering the promised rest, and the eternal city and heavenly realm, is on tomorrow. Many passages of Scripture promise present benefits to believers, resulting from the sacrifice of Christ, but many also promise future benefits."
What was the rest of God available to the faithless generation? Was it not the temporal rest of Canaan? Brother Garrett's view of Hebrews 3 fails to see that the promise of God is available today as it was to that faithless generation. It is in this way that his view of Hebrews 4 is out of context to assert that the rest of God is not in this same temporal context, though analogous to the application of eternal rest.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Brown wrote:
"This is not a reference to a future enjoyment of the eternal promise of God, though it is analogous to it. This is the same promise that was made to the faithless generation of Israel. It is for this reason that it is evident that the rest of God in Hebrews 4 is not a direct reference to eternal rest, though analogous to it..."
Jason has been guilty of more double speak on this subject than I can now list. He sometimes seems to allow that "eternal rest" is included in Paul's discussion of God's"rest," but then at other times says plainly that the promised rest of God "is not a reference to a future enjoyment of the eternal promise of God," and "is not a direct reference to eternal rest." Thus, the "rest" only denotes a "time salvation"! This is silly and 99% of all Christians will stand bewildered at the few Hardshells who, in cult fashion, so stubbornly resist what is the plain and normal meaning of the text. Jason leaves himself a way out, however, for he always is willing to grant that eternal rest is under consideration by way of similitude and analogy. So, more double speak, more effort to"have it both ways." Of course, as I have shown, such attempts only involve Jason in more absurdities and contradictions."
How is it doublespeak to say that the rest of God in time, which is a direct reference to the manner that O.T. Israel failed to enter into the temporal rest of Canaan, is given and asserted by Paul as a foretaste of the eternal rest of God, of which the elect are made partakers by the preserving grace of God (Hebrews 3:14)? Surely the rest of Canaan was a foretaste of immortal heaven, and it is clearly immortal heaven that the elect are made partakers of in Christ by holding the confidence of their faith steadfast unto the end.
The rest of God available to believers in the gospel is the same rest available to O.T. Israel, but both Canaan's land and the gospel church was and is a foretaste of the eternal rest of God. The rest of God begins in time but, ultimately, is entered completely at glorification. I do not believe that the rest of God in Hebrews 4 should be excluded from final eternal rest, but that Paul's use of it is reflective of Geerhardus Vos' "already" and "not yet" kingdom theology. The aspect of this rest to which the Hebrew audience is exhorted is laying hold of their eternal inheritance by entering into temporal rest. There is no basis to expect eternal rest apart from temporal rest in gospel belief, which I believe is Paul's point.
I am not trying to have it "both ways", but doing justice to the full text of Hebrews 3 and 4. The rest of God is not "only" in time or eternity, but both, just as the kingdom of God is not only in time but is coming in it's full glory at Christ's final coming. Those who fail to enter the rest of God to any degree in time manifest that they have no eternal inheritance of the eternal rest, which certainly should make all Christians, "take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God."
I will address the remainder of Brother Garrett's comments in a future entry.
No comments:
Post a Comment