Stephen Garrett argued in his work on Primitive Baptists (here) that John Owen set forth the original, creedal, Calvinistic view of regeneration being both mediated through the gospel and immediately wrought by the Spirit.
The quoted paragraph below from Owens exemplifies this view:
"The will, in the first act of conversion (as even sundry of the schoolmen acknowledge),acts not but as it is acted, moves not but as it is moved; and therefore is passive therein, in the sense immediately to be explained. And if this be not so, it cannot be avoided but that the act of our turning unto God is a mere natural act, and not spiritual or gracious; for it is an act of the will, not enabled thereunto antecedently by grace. Wherefore it must be granted, and it shall he proved, that, in order of nature, the acting of grace in the will in our conversion is antecedent unto its own acting; though in the same instant of time wherein the will is moved it moves, and when it is acted it acts itself, and preserves its own liberty in its exercise. There is, therefore, herein an inward almighty secret act of the power of the Holy Ghost, producing or effecting in us the will of conversion unto God, so acting our wills as that they also act themselves, and that freely. The Holy Spirit, who in his power and operation is more intimate, as it were, unto the principles of our souls than they are to themselves, doth, with the preservation and in the exercise of the liberty of our wills, effectually work our regeneration and conversion unto God."
The first point to note is that Owens' view here pertained only to adults. An extraordinary effectual calling apart from the man-preached gospel of those deprived of outward revelation was allowed by Owens, Charnock, and the framers of the LCF by John 3:3-8.
The second point to note is that this view of the effectual call is not incompatible with an effectual call apart from a man-preached gospel, so there is no logical reason to refer to it as "ordinary" and the effectual call made apart from the gospel as preached by man as "extraordinary".
The central point is this: there is no scriptural basis to confine the object of faith wrought by the Spirit to the mere intellectual apprehension of gospel propositions of language. Certainly, the effectual call as Owens describes it above would entail gospel propositions, but gospel propositions about Christ should not be judged as necessary conditions of saving faith simply because mental competent adults naturally embrace gospel propositions as a part of faith. Gospel propositions are embraced by mentally competent adults because they corroborate the testimony of the Christ immediately revealed by Spirit.
This is proved by an appeal to John 6:53-58, 63; 14:6. Gospel words refer to the spiritual reality of the person of Christ that must be spiritually eaten and drank. It is not that the words alone are the end, but the spiritual person of Christ is the end; Christ is the literal way, the truth, and the life, not simply the proposition in it's letter: "Christ is the way, the truth, and the life." This proposition is void without the self-revelation of Christ by the Spirit through the words about Him, and it is clear when the proposition is not void, being attended with power of Christ, the mere proposition is not the fullness of the revelation and object of faith - the intimate experience of Christ by the Spirit is the fullness of gospel revelation, which clearly outstrips the bare, intellectual apprehension of gospel propositions.
The multitude that followed Christ in John 6 rejected Christ because they were offended by His words; they did not have Christ within them by Spirit and, therefore, rejected the exterior words of Christ of the metaphysical union of those truly given to Him by the Father.
Therefore, as the Spirit immediately reveals the person of Christ to those apart from the man-preached gospel, the Spirit immediately reveals the person of Christ by effecting faith in His person even with the gospel, as the faith effected is in the person of Christ, not simply propositions of language.
This is the force of Christ's declaration to Peter to any reasonable mind: "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Plainly, the man Christ with His gospel declarations was flesh and blood, and, if Christ only referred to the efficient cause of belief in gospel propositions, it is incorrect that flesh and blood was not an instrumental cause of Peter's belief. But Christ plainly made the knowledge of Peter - that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God - a truth belonging entirely to the Spirit (or that which is revealed by the Father) as 1 Cor. 2:9,10. So it is clear that to understand Jesus in Matt. 16:17 to only refer to the efficient power of the revelation of the Father is to make Christ a liar.
The same is true of John 1:12,13. The mistake of Stephen Garrett in this passage is to claim that belief in the name of Christ is limited to gospel propositions. The mistake of some Primitive Baptists is to not recognize that the 'power to become the sons of God' is an effectually created faith in the person of Christ, which is certainly had only in those which believe the gospel, not in those which fully reject it. They were born not of blood, nor of the will of man, but by the direct implantation of faith in the person of Christ. If they were born by the instrumental cause of the man-preached gospel, plainly they would have been born instrumentally by the will of man.
So, Garrett's view makes John 1:13 and Matt. 16:17 duplicitous.
The main point is that Owens view of the effectual call above is not incompatible with the effectual call apart from a man-preached gospel because the faith wrought by Spirit is first in Christ then in gospel propositions about Him that attend the effectual call.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Garrett's "Doublespeak"
Brother Stephen Garrett has often accused me of "doublespeak" in my defense of Primitive Baptist doctrine. In this posting, I will argue that it is brother Garrett that is truly guilty of "doublespeak" - of affirming mutually exclusive ideas.
First, in a recent posting on Perseverance, Garrett stated, quoting Steve Hays approvingly in white:
"In Calvinism, “eternal security” is conditional, not unconditional. It’s contingent on the “perseverance” of the saints. In fact, that’s why it’s traditionally dubbed the “perseverance of the saints.” Subtle, I know.
Of course, there’s a condition behind the condition. If “eternal security” is conditional on perseverance, then perseverance is conditional on God’s preservation of the elect. And that’s a sure thing."
This is in accordance with what I taught in my series on"Salvation - Conditional or Unconditional?" It is both."
In opposition to the cosmological argument for the existence of God, atheists and agnostics argue that the universe is an infinite chain of finite causes. The manifest contradiction of such an argument is the same with what Stephen Garrett affirms here.
If the supposed conditional perseverance is founded on the unconditional decree of God, as Hays and Garrett concede, perseverance is manifestly unconditional, and is clearly not "conditional" in the same way and in the same relationship as it is unconditional (this is an irrational contradiction). Hays and Garrett both confuse the conditional nature of obedience in good works and perseverance as conditions of salvation when they are plainly the evidences and process of what God has decreed and effected by the effectual call.
The sense in which they appear "conditional" is only relative to the unknown decree of God. The fact that God's decrees are not fully known to man establishes that salvation is only conditional in it's apprehension relative to the evidences of it in good works and perseverance, not that some degree of good works and preservation are not decreed by God.
Whatever God has established in His purpose shall be. This does not establish Fatalism because men do not know the mind of God, and it is clear from James 1 that no man should say when he is tempted that he is tempted of God; "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counsellor? (Rom. 11:34)"
There is an epistemic barrier that rationally precludes adopting a view of future events of time as if one knows the mind of God. Surely, whatever was, is, or shall be cannot have been otherwise in the purposes of God, or God is not omniscient and, manifestly, not omnipotent. But it is impossible to know God's future purposes with as much certainty as God has, even down to the absolute certainty of one's final salvation, which is the obvious basis of working out salvation with fear and trembling; because the perseverance in so working out salvation is upon what God works within, if so be that we have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
Salvation is only conditional in the minds of men who do not know with mathematical certainty what God has purposed for them and in them. This is not an actual condition of salvation, but an epistemic condition of salvation relative to the knowing mind.
Above all, the contradiction of Garrett and Hays is evident. The confusion here is in departing from the obvious logical consequence of the whole counsel of God and the London Confession in rooting eternal security in the electing purpose of God, not on man's will which is itself rooted in the electing purpose of God. Eternal security (in some degree of faith and holiness in time) is as unconditional as the predestination of God of the elect in Christ.
Next, I would like to note the same violation of the law of non-contradiction in Stephen Garrett's view of regeneration in that it is both immediate and mediate.
Brother Garrett argued (here) that regeneration is both mediate and immediate by appeal to Owen's writings. But the mediation of the Spirit through the gospel for Owen was still an effect wrought in man by an antecedent, immediate operation of the Spirit. The immediate work of the Spirit was not through the gospel, only the faith effected by the Spirit was through the gospel. Owen did not affirm that regeneration was both immediate and mediate in the same sense and in the same relationship. Clearly, regeneration is mediated through the gospel only after faith is immediately wrought by the Spirit. Owen affirmed the logical, antecedent, and immediate cause of the Spirit to regeneration and faith.
Owen's view of the preparatory work of the Spirit in the conviction of sin in unregenerate men seems to me to contradict 1 Cor. 2:14 and Romans 8:7. I would grant that natural men can be cognizant of sin by the law, but to carnal men, sold under sin, the law incites the enmity of concupiscence (Romans 7:8), not spiritual conviction meet for repentance. So it is not clear to me why it is necessary from the Scripture to attribute the condemnation of sin of which natural men are cognizant as a work of the Spirit.
However, even if it were granted that the Spirit convicts unregenerate men of the condemnation of the law before or in anticipation of the effectual and immediate work of the Spirit in regeneration, it would be a point quite beside the fact of whether true, biblical faith is immediate by the Spirit or mediated through the gospel, as Owen plainly states that faith is immediately wrought by the Spirit, which then establishes the instrumentality of the word by faith having it as it's object.
So, the impression Garrett gives as if regeneration is both mediate and immediate obscures the primacy of the Spirit in immediately effecting gospel mediation. Regeneration is not both mediate and immediate in the same sense and in the same relationship; rather, the mediate is established by the immediate work of the Spirit just as perseverance is established by God's preservation.
First, in a recent posting on Perseverance, Garrett stated, quoting Steve Hays approvingly in white:
"In Calvinism, “eternal security” is conditional, not unconditional. It’s contingent on the “perseverance” of the saints. In fact, that’s why it’s traditionally dubbed the “perseverance of the saints.” Subtle, I know.
In Calvinism, “eternal security” is contingent on sanctification, contingent on faith. Good works are a condition of salvation.
This is in accordance with what I taught in my series on"Salvation - Conditional or Unconditional?" It is both."
In opposition to the cosmological argument for the existence of God, atheists and agnostics argue that the universe is an infinite chain of finite causes. The manifest contradiction of such an argument is the same with what Stephen Garrett affirms here.
If the supposed conditional perseverance is founded on the unconditional decree of God, as Hays and Garrett concede, perseverance is manifestly unconditional, and is clearly not "conditional" in the same way and in the same relationship as it is unconditional (this is an irrational contradiction). Hays and Garrett both confuse the conditional nature of obedience in good works and perseverance as conditions of salvation when they are plainly the evidences and process of what God has decreed and effected by the effectual call.
The sense in which they appear "conditional" is only relative to the unknown decree of God. The fact that God's decrees are not fully known to man establishes that salvation is only conditional in it's apprehension relative to the evidences of it in good works and perseverance, not that some degree of good works and preservation are not decreed by God.
Whatever God has established in His purpose shall be. This does not establish Fatalism because men do not know the mind of God, and it is clear from James 1 that no man should say when he is tempted that he is tempted of God; "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counsellor? (Rom. 11:34)"
There is an epistemic barrier that rationally precludes adopting a view of future events of time as if one knows the mind of God. Surely, whatever was, is, or shall be cannot have been otherwise in the purposes of God, or God is not omniscient and, manifestly, not omnipotent. But it is impossible to know God's future purposes with as much certainty as God has, even down to the absolute certainty of one's final salvation, which is the obvious basis of working out salvation with fear and trembling; because the perseverance in so working out salvation is upon what God works within, if so be that we have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
Salvation is only conditional in the minds of men who do not know with mathematical certainty what God has purposed for them and in them. This is not an actual condition of salvation, but an epistemic condition of salvation relative to the knowing mind.
Above all, the contradiction of Garrett and Hays is evident. The confusion here is in departing from the obvious logical consequence of the whole counsel of God and the London Confession in rooting eternal security in the electing purpose of God, not on man's will which is itself rooted in the electing purpose of God. Eternal security (in some degree of faith and holiness in time) is as unconditional as the predestination of God of the elect in Christ.
Next, I would like to note the same violation of the law of non-contradiction in Stephen Garrett's view of regeneration in that it is both immediate and mediate.
Brother Garrett argued (here) that regeneration is both mediate and immediate by appeal to Owen's writings. But the mediation of the Spirit through the gospel for Owen was still an effect wrought in man by an antecedent, immediate operation of the Spirit. The immediate work of the Spirit was not through the gospel, only the faith effected by the Spirit was through the gospel. Owen did not affirm that regeneration was both immediate and mediate in the same sense and in the same relationship. Clearly, regeneration is mediated through the gospel only after faith is immediately wrought by the Spirit. Owen affirmed the logical, antecedent, and immediate cause of the Spirit to regeneration and faith.
Owen's view of the preparatory work of the Spirit in the conviction of sin in unregenerate men seems to me to contradict 1 Cor. 2:14 and Romans 8:7. I would grant that natural men can be cognizant of sin by the law, but to carnal men, sold under sin, the law incites the enmity of concupiscence (Romans 7:8), not spiritual conviction meet for repentance. So it is not clear to me why it is necessary from the Scripture to attribute the condemnation of sin of which natural men are cognizant as a work of the Spirit.
However, even if it were granted that the Spirit convicts unregenerate men of the condemnation of the law before or in anticipation of the effectual and immediate work of the Spirit in regeneration, it would be a point quite beside the fact of whether true, biblical faith is immediate by the Spirit or mediated through the gospel, as Owen plainly states that faith is immediately wrought by the Spirit, which then establishes the instrumentality of the word by faith having it as it's object.
So, the impression Garrett gives as if regeneration is both mediate and immediate obscures the primacy of the Spirit in immediately effecting gospel mediation. Regeneration is not both mediate and immediate in the same sense and in the same relationship; rather, the mediate is established by the immediate work of the Spirit just as perseverance is established by God's preservation.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Garrett on Faith is Begotten
On his BaptistGadfly blog, brother Stephen Garrett wrote a post entitled, "Faith is Begotten". I enjoyed the article, especially the fair-minded way brother Garrett handled the subject that could be considered intuitive proof that "regeneration" precedes faith, as he even admits.
Brother Garrett's position is that the Scripture is not sufficiently clear to insist on a definite order, and that faith and regeneration ought to be conceived as concurrent, one depending on the other.
I am not quite sure if brother Garrett is aware of the predicament he is in. The advent of the Spirit in the heart, soul, and mind of man obviously must precede faith and repentance (else grace is denied in a true semi-Pelagian fashion), whether or not one insists that a man is regenerated only when he repents and believes.
So it appears that brother Garrett is hiding behind the term "regeneration", as even Charnock plainly states the the man-preached gospel is first Spirit, then life, which plainly grants the necessity of the Spirit's first, antecedent work before spiritual life and faith.
So, in regard to regeneration and faith both being the work and effect of the Spirit, they refer to that spiritual life effected by the Spirit, and there is no regeneration where there is no faith in Christ. However, the faith effected by the Spirit is the embrace of the person of Christ, which is the content of the gospel, not simply the letter of the propositions of the gospel. So, Charnock, like the LCF, is inconsistent in insisting on the propositions of the gospel as preached by man as requisite for Christ's revelation in regard to the effectual calling of adults, as John 3:3-8 does not consider a mentally incompetent person. It is more consistent to argue that the competent mental faculties of adults naturally embrace in faith propositional truth that is consistent with the rudimentary, spiritual acquaintance of His person (1 Cor. 2:9,10).
The fact that the effectual calling of adults under the sound of the gospel produces a faith that is more knowledgeable about the person of Christ does not establish that faith knowledge is propositional truth. It is the reality of the person of Christ to which gospel propositions refer that is faith knowledge, the propositions of language only refer to this experience - they are not that essential experience, though they are naturally embraced in those with mental competence, even as a person would naturally embrace descriptive language by a sports commentator of the visual experience of a sporting event.
Gospel propositions are not requisite for the spiritual experience of Christ, as John 3:3-8 make clear, and when the Spirit effects faith in the person of Christ where the gospel is being preached, the embrace of the propositions about Christ are the result of Christ being recognized in the propositions of the gospel, as the secrets of his heart made manifest (1 Corinthians 14:24,25). When adults are effectually called with the gospel, they embrace a greater degree of intellectual knowledge about Christ as a part of faith by the gospel than do those effectually called apart from the gospel as preached by man, which calling apart from the gospel plainly both Charnock and the LCF allow by the distinction of an "ordinary" and "extraordinary" effectual calling.
So, in essence, I agree with Garrett that being born of God is a state of being from which faith in Christ cannot be divorced, except in a logical sense that regeneration may refer to the Spirit's antecedent work which is only complete when faith in Christ is immediately effected, but the Spirit's work is plainly antecedent to faith as a cause is to it's effect. Also, the gospel, as preached by man, is not the fundamental object of faith in it's propositional structure to any of the elect, though the propositions that refer to the spiritual experience of Christ are embraced in mentally competent adults as any descriptive truth would be embraced by those experiencing the very experience described. It is Christ Himself that is the true object of Biblical faith.
Brother Garrett's position is that the Scripture is not sufficiently clear to insist on a definite order, and that faith and regeneration ought to be conceived as concurrent, one depending on the other.
I am not quite sure if brother Garrett is aware of the predicament he is in. The advent of the Spirit in the heart, soul, and mind of man obviously must precede faith and repentance (else grace is denied in a true semi-Pelagian fashion), whether or not one insists that a man is regenerated only when he repents and believes.
So it appears that brother Garrett is hiding behind the term "regeneration", as even Charnock plainly states the the man-preached gospel is first Spirit, then life, which plainly grants the necessity of the Spirit's first, antecedent work before spiritual life and faith.
So, in regard to regeneration and faith both being the work and effect of the Spirit, they refer to that spiritual life effected by the Spirit, and there is no regeneration where there is no faith in Christ. However, the faith effected by the Spirit is the embrace of the person of Christ, which is the content of the gospel, not simply the letter of the propositions of the gospel. So, Charnock, like the LCF, is inconsistent in insisting on the propositions of the gospel as preached by man as requisite for Christ's revelation in regard to the effectual calling of adults, as John 3:3-8 does not consider a mentally incompetent person. It is more consistent to argue that the competent mental faculties of adults naturally embrace in faith propositional truth that is consistent with the rudimentary, spiritual acquaintance of His person (1 Cor. 2:9,10).
The fact that the effectual calling of adults under the sound of the gospel produces a faith that is more knowledgeable about the person of Christ does not establish that faith knowledge is propositional truth. It is the reality of the person of Christ to which gospel propositions refer that is faith knowledge, the propositions of language only refer to this experience - they are not that essential experience, though they are naturally embraced in those with mental competence, even as a person would naturally embrace descriptive language by a sports commentator of the visual experience of a sporting event.
Gospel propositions are not requisite for the spiritual experience of Christ, as John 3:3-8 make clear, and when the Spirit effects faith in the person of Christ where the gospel is being preached, the embrace of the propositions about Christ are the result of Christ being recognized in the propositions of the gospel, as the secrets of his heart made manifest (1 Corinthians 14:24,25). When adults are effectually called with the gospel, they embrace a greater degree of intellectual knowledge about Christ as a part of faith by the gospel than do those effectually called apart from the gospel as preached by man, which calling apart from the gospel plainly both Charnock and the LCF allow by the distinction of an "ordinary" and "extraordinary" effectual calling.
So, in essence, I agree with Garrett that being born of God is a state of being from which faith in Christ cannot be divorced, except in a logical sense that regeneration may refer to the Spirit's antecedent work which is only complete when faith in Christ is immediately effected, but the Spirit's work is plainly antecedent to faith as a cause is to it's effect. Also, the gospel, as preached by man, is not the fundamental object of faith in it's propositional structure to any of the elect, though the propositions that refer to the spiritual experience of Christ are embraced in mentally competent adults as any descriptive truth would be embraced by those experiencing the very experience described. It is Christ Himself that is the true object of Biblical faith.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Fralick on Dillon and Regenerated Idolaters
Brother Fralick stated:
"In an article entitled Faith, editor Randy Dillon writes of the regenerated child of God (emphasis mine):
"What will they believe? Will they believe in God, the Creator of the universe, will they believe in Jesus as the Christ, or will they believe in some other God? The faith that an individual receives in the new birth will cause him to believe in something greater than himself. He will worship some god, but it may not be the God of the Bible. Paul taught the men of Athens in Acts 17:23, 'Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.' The scriptures clearly teach that the Jews believed in God, the Creator of the Universe, but rejected Jesus as the Christ." (Primitive Advocate, Volume 5, 2002)
This is one of the worst conclusions that can be reached when one has adopted extreme time salvation. It suggests the change, if it can be called such, which regeneration brings is a conversion to idolatry!!! How dishonoring to Christ, whose purpose is to deliver His people, not just from the penalty (i.e. justification), but the practice of sins (i.e. sanctification). If it be true, though, that the change experienced by the regenerated sinner is worshipping "some God" then what did he worship beforehand? Anything? If he did not worship any God, who then is NOT regenerated, seeing that the worship of some God is practically common to the human race? If he did worship some God, then there is no real change. He simply continues as an idolater; only now he is a regenerated one!
How does such a statement make it into one of the leading publications? If it is an aberrant view, then a serious editorial slip was made somewhere!"
It is not clear that the error of Elder Dillon here stems from the embrace of conditional, time salvation. Rather, brother Fralick is assuming a relation based on the symptoms of a quasi-universalism that has been present among the PB's, especially due to the influence of 20th century ministers like Cayce and Sarrels. The controlling interpretative mechanism that under girds this type of minister is an irrational commitment to a nearly universal elect family. This is the fundamental commitment that taints the truth of emphasizing the salvation in time (from an evil generation, for example) that children of God can experience when they are obedient.
The view that the belief and knowledge essential to the effectual call is the, "belief in something greater than himself", is easily refuted as a sufficient condition for the knowledge of the new birth, as John 17:3 clearly makes the essential knowledge of the vital union knowledge of the person of Christ, not a general nebulous idea of a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. The idea that the intimate, spiritual knowledge of Christ is encompassed by an ontological argument for the existence of God is absurd, and is, no doubt, the same grounds that certain philosophers will appeal to Christ; and he will retort, "I never knew you" (Matt. 7:21).
This view of the knowledge of the effectual call shows the underlying commitment to a virtual universalism, it does not follow simply from viewing the conditional nature of disobedience among children of God, as in Jude 23.
This view is clearly refuted by the Fulton Confession in that the Fulton brethren did not footnote chapter 3, section 4 of the LCF in regard to the damnation of the idolatrous heathen in John 4:22. This cited text establishes the historic view of Primitive Baptists in regard to unbelieving, idolatrous worship of God, which clearly reproves Mr. Dillon and Sarrels.
Brother Fralick insinuates that this view is not an aberrant one among Primitive Baptists, but it clearly is an aberrant view relative to the Fulton Confession. The fact that it is held among some PB's only shows the influence of Cayce and Sarrels, it does not establish the historic view of Primitive Baptists.
"In an article entitled Faith, editor Randy Dillon writes of the regenerated child of God (emphasis mine):
"What will they believe? Will they believe in God, the Creator of the universe, will they believe in Jesus as the Christ, or will they believe in some other God? The faith that an individual receives in the new birth will cause him to believe in something greater than himself. He will worship some god, but it may not be the God of the Bible. Paul taught the men of Athens in Acts 17:23, 'Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.' The scriptures clearly teach that the Jews believed in God, the Creator of the Universe, but rejected Jesus as the Christ." (Primitive Advocate, Volume 5, 2002)
This is one of the worst conclusions that can be reached when one has adopted extreme time salvation. It suggests the change, if it can be called such, which regeneration brings is a conversion to idolatry!!! How dishonoring to Christ, whose purpose is to deliver His people, not just from the penalty (i.e. justification), but the practice of sins (i.e. sanctification). If it be true, though, that the change experienced by the regenerated sinner is worshipping "some God" then what did he worship beforehand? Anything? If he did not worship any God, who then is NOT regenerated, seeing that the worship of some God is practically common to the human race? If he did worship some God, then there is no real change. He simply continues as an idolater; only now he is a regenerated one!
How does such a statement make it into one of the leading publications? If it is an aberrant view, then a serious editorial slip was made somewhere!"
It is not clear that the error of Elder Dillon here stems from the embrace of conditional, time salvation. Rather, brother Fralick is assuming a relation based on the symptoms of a quasi-universalism that has been present among the PB's, especially due to the influence of 20th century ministers like Cayce and Sarrels. The controlling interpretative mechanism that under girds this type of minister is an irrational commitment to a nearly universal elect family. This is the fundamental commitment that taints the truth of emphasizing the salvation in time (from an evil generation, for example) that children of God can experience when they are obedient.
The view that the belief and knowledge essential to the effectual call is the, "belief in something greater than himself", is easily refuted as a sufficient condition for the knowledge of the new birth, as John 17:3 clearly makes the essential knowledge of the vital union knowledge of the person of Christ, not a general nebulous idea of a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. The idea that the intimate, spiritual knowledge of Christ is encompassed by an ontological argument for the existence of God is absurd, and is, no doubt, the same grounds that certain philosophers will appeal to Christ; and he will retort, "I never knew you" (Matt. 7:21).
This view of the knowledge of the effectual call shows the underlying commitment to a virtual universalism, it does not follow simply from viewing the conditional nature of disobedience among children of God, as in Jude 23.
This view is clearly refuted by the Fulton Confession in that the Fulton brethren did not footnote chapter 3, section 4 of the LCF in regard to the damnation of the idolatrous heathen in John 4:22. This cited text establishes the historic view of Primitive Baptists in regard to unbelieving, idolatrous worship of God, which clearly reproves Mr. Dillon and Sarrels.
Brother Fralick insinuates that this view is not an aberrant one among Primitive Baptists, but it clearly is an aberrant view relative to the Fulton Confession. The fact that it is held among some PB's only shows the influence of Cayce and Sarrels, it does not establish the historic view of Primitive Baptists.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Garrett's Rebuttal to the London Confession
Brother Stephen Garrett wrote (here):
"Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, recently made some comments about the London Confession of faith and stated that this old confession taught against the Gospel means position. (see here) This is an outlandish claim."
The London Confession clearly teaches against the "means position" of Garrett which denies that God effectually calls apart from the gospel today:
"I have denied that Jesus today personally preaches the Gospel to anyone..."
It is clear to any reasonable mind that the London Confession contradicts this assertion in section 3 of chapter 10 to the elect apart from the gospel as preached by man to whom Christ by the Spirit alone effectually calls.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Why take the Fulton Confession? It clearly upholds Hardshellism. It clearly is in disagreement with the London Confession on effectual calling and the use of means, as well as on the subject of the divine decrees. Does Jason think that the Fulton Confession accurately interprets the LBC? Hardshells are divided over the London Confession. The honest ones, like Elders S. T. Tolley and R. V. Sarrels, admit that the elders who wrote the footnotes to the Fulton Confession were dishonest in altering the clear meaning of the LBC. Others attempt to follow in the steps of the Fulton brethren by insisting that the London Confession did not teach the use of means in regeneration. Is that Jason's position? It seems to be. But, before I confront Jason about this, I want him to tell us frankly. The above words seem to agree with what the Fulton brethren said about the LBC regarding the use of Gospel preaching in accomplishing the new birth."
The Fulton Confession, by both what is footnoted and what is not footnoted, does not uphold what Brother Garrett takes to be modern Primitive Baptist views, as exemplified by Cayce and Sarrels. Wherever the London Confession is not footnoted, it must be taken as historically representative of the Primitive Baptists according to the Fulton Confession. I deny that it is in substantive disagreement with the LCF. The inconsistency of the LCF in regard to God's "ordinary" and "extraordinary" method of effectually calling the elect is opposed as an arbitrary distinction, but the substantive issue of whether God effectually calls in N.T. times apart from the gospel is something on which both confessions are obviously agreed. If one carefully reads the Fulton Footnotes without bias and without impugning the authors with the ulterior motives of later 20th Century Universalists or quasi-Universalists like Cayce and Sarrels, the Fulton Confession will be seen as consistent with the LCF.
I deny that the Fulton Confession objected to the conjoining of the gospel with the Spirit in the effectual call in terms of gospel faith being the fruit of the spiritual life effected by Spirit. The Fulton Footnotes objected to a formulation of the effectual call that made the word (man preached gospel) inconsistently essential to regeneration, as the framers of the LCF admitted by appeal to John 3:3-8. Brother Garrett may insist that the LCF conjoins the word and Spirit as Charnock did, but as pointed out in my blog on Garrett's appeal to Charnock, Charnock and the LCF can only logically mean by the conjoining of word and spirit in regeneration that the gospel is embraced in faith to those effectually called under the sound of the gospel, not that the effectual call may not occur apart from the gospel as preached by man, which was denied by the framers of the LCF by appeal to John 3:3-8.
The Fulton Footnote most likely to be misinterpreted by Garrett is the footnote to section one, chapter 10:
"Fulton Footnote: We do not understand that sinners are effectually called by the written word in any sense out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation but by Christ, the Word of God. The quickening and renewing of the Holy Spirit prepares the sinner to answer the gospel call, as seen in Section 2; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 John 4:6"
Now, this footnote does not say that Primitive Baptists reject that the elect may be effectually called under the sound of the gospel. The point here is exactly what I have made to Brother Garrett in regard to the misnomer of the "instrumental cause" of regeneration being the gospel. The spiritually dead, carnal man cannot rationally be said to exercise faith as the sole cause of regeneration. The dawning of spiritual understanding by faith in the mind of carnal man is the effect of something that cannot itself be the cause in contradiction. Is the cause man's understanding? Of course not, as that is what is effected. It is the objective gospel propositions, then. Yet, how are these causing the understanding and faith in man in an instrumental fashion without his understanding? How can the propositions provide causation to the understanding of carnal man in a meaningful sense without the Spirit being viewed as effecting immediately the capacity for faith and understanding ex nihilo?
Succinctly, Charnock's view of effectual calling conceals the logical fact that gospel propositions cannot be instrumental to carnal man until the Spirit has had a necessary immediate work. This is the point of the above footnote.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Further, the views of Cayce, Sarrels, and Richards are not the "aberrant views of some individuals," but are from highly respected men among the Hardshells, recognized leaders. Ironically, most Hardshells would consider the views of brother Jason to be"aberrant." We have consistently asked Jason to provide us with the writings of present day Hardshell elders where they teach contrary to the Hardshell elders we have cited. He has not yet given us these evidences."
I recently attended the Chambers Creek Association in Dallas/Fort Worth, TX. I personally talked with multiple Elders, and none openly avowed the teachings of Cayce or Sarrels. Elder Clifford Gowens of Dallas, TX admitted to me that Hassell was far more representative of the Primitive Baptists than Cayce or Sarrels. I recognize that this is on my testimony alone, but what has Garrett given? His father? What "proof" has he given that is beyond interpretation? I have challenged his proof - he does not have objective proof of the general teachings of the Primitive Baptists unless he takes the Fulton Confession, which was a true majority report. Views that controvert the Fulton Confession are not historically representative of the Primitive Baptists. Cayce and Sarrels are generally regarded with a high degree of skepticism among the Primitives I have visited in Oklahoma and Texas.
Perhaps there are portions of the country (especially those parts under the influence of his paper for so many years) that are more open to Cayce. After all, there is an Association in the Appalachians, so I have read, that are Universalists - I'm sure they can't get enough of Cayce and Sarrels.
Brother Garrett stated:
"It is ironic how Jason can condemn following Cayce and Sarrels and yet uphold their essential heresy! Cayce affirmed that the Athenians to whom Paul preached were regenerated before they heard the Gospel and while they were pagans! And, though Jason at the first attacked this view of Cayce, yet here he now endorses it! How does he know that the pagans were "regenerated"? Does the text affirm it? Jason, on one hand, countenances the view of Cayce that polytheists are "born again," and yet says he is to be "blamed" for such a view. "Consistency thou art a jewel."
This is a ridiculous "argument". Brother Garrett was incensed when I "misrepresented" him in terms of the basis of election in Ephes. 1:11 and the LCF being the good pleasure of God, not God's foreknowledge, which his ill-advised statements that precipitated my contention surely seemed to establish. And here he is, setting a precedent in hypocrisy in representing my views any way he pleases so as to show them contradictory. "Consistency thou art a jewel."
My very point was that the effectual call cannot be assumed of those that do not believe the gospel. I did not say as a matter of certainty that any of the Mars Hill pagans were regenerate before Paul preached to them. My point was that gospel belief is the only sufficient evidence of regeneration. Cayce's error was affirming as certain what the Bible does not affirm as certain.
Brother Garrett stated:
"How could their being "born again" be "previous to the gospel message" if Jesus personally preached the Gospel to them in order to birth them and make them believers in him? Jason, "the legs of the lame are not equal." If they were "born again" before hearing of Jesus by Paul, then why did they testify that these were "new" and "strange" things that they were hearing?"
"Previous to the gospel message" referred to the gospel message of Paul on Mars Hill. The reaction to Paul's gospel in that it was "new" and "strange" was an initial reaction by some of the philosophers in the marketplace before Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. I was not arguing that the heathen pagans should be thought of as regenerate in heathen idolatry, but that it was possible, for all we know of this account, that those that did believe Paul after his sermon on Mars Hill could have been born again previously. Clearly, the majority of the Athenian pagans manifested non-election in gospel rejection after Paul's sermon, and perhaps it was this majority that referred to Paul as a babbler, setting forth "new" and "strange" teachings. My point was that the certain affirmation that all of the pagans were born again, even those who rejected the gospel, is completely without scriptural or rational justification.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason cited Eze. 3: 6 (as did Sonny Pyles in the sermon I reviewed - see here) and suggested that the heathen had born again children of God among them. But, if that is so, how is it that the Lord did NOT send Ezekiel or the Hebrew prophets to them? By Jason's own reasoning he proves that there were NOT any born again heathen idolaters because they were not delivered from it!"
If there were born again individuals among those to whom God did not send Ezekiel, it does not follow that God was limited to Ezekiel in dealing with them. Just because God did not send Ezekiel to them does not prove that God would not deal with them by some other method, obviously. And in this same manner, the fact that God chose not to send Ezekiel to them does not establish that none of them could have (even possibly) been born again. The point of the passage is that the pagans would have believed Ezekiel, if God had sent him to them. The passage does not conclusively prove that any were regenerate, as it may refer to a reformation of which non-elect pagans are capable, as in Luke 10:12-14.
Brother Garrett stated:
"The Psalmist testified:
"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord." (Psa. 147: 19-20)If the Lord chose not to send his word to the heathen, to deliver them from idolatry and belief in false gods, then, by Jason's own reasoning, there were no born again children of God among the heathen. Either he must admit this or agree with Richards. As long as he disagrees with Richards, and asserts that all those who are born again will be delivered from belief in false gods, then he must admit that there were no born again people among the heathen. The Lord did not send Ezekiel! He did not choose to deliver the heathen from idolatry!"
As a fact, heathen nations were gross idolaters, even practicing human sacrifice. I would accept Psalms 147:19-20 as proof of the general truth that such Gentile nations were generally eternally damned. It is untenable to view the effectually called as gross idolaters. Psalms 135:15-18 proves this conclusively to any reasonable mind:
"The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; they have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths. They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them."
I'm not sure if there can be a clearer picture of the unregenerate state that the heathen exemplify. However, this is the general truth. It is still possible that God may have effectually called men and women among the heathen, but obviously they would no longer be pagan qua pagan.
Brother Garrett stated:
"That is a false statement. The London Confession clearly asserts the certain damnation of the heathen who do not know God and believe in Jesus. (see here) So did John Gill. (see here) "
John Gill allowed that the heathen could be saved extraordinarily. He only asserted the general damnation of the heathen. The London Confession is talking about the non-elect in chapter 10, section 4, as the beginning of the section makes perfectly clear. The non-elect heathen are damned in this section clearly, but this section is obviously considering only the non-elect, as it states clearly. Brother Garrett asserts that the framers of the LCF condemned all those apart from the gospel, but this controverts section 3 of chapter 10.
Now, he argues:
""Those incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word" has no reference to heathen, but to infants and idiots. "Incapable" relates to physical inability. The heathen are not physically "incapable" of hearing the Gospel as infants and idiots. Throughout the confession they teach that all the elect will attain to faith and repentance."
Brother Garrett wishes he could prove the confession meant to only refer to the mentally incompetent by this phrase. Why didn't they simply state it that way? Garrett is without foundation here because the citation of John 3:3-8 does not involve an infant or a mentally incompetent person. It plainly involves Nicodemus, a person capable of being called by the ministry of the Word.
The fact is that the phrase, "...so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word," is only conditioned by "incapable" as referring to infants and the mentally handicapped in Garrett's mind. The possibility of the salvation of those geographically incapable of being outwardly called by the gospel is obviously provided for here. Garrett is dishonest to disallow what the framers plainly allowed by their general provision. If they wanted to be more specific than what they were, they surely could have been. And he thinks his interpretations of Scripture are honest and forthright! Here we observe the lawyer in Garrett - twisting, molding, and sculpting the objective into his own image. Dare we call it idolatry?
Brother Garrett stated:
"Further, Jason is again contradicting himself. He says, on the one hand, that he does not believe all heathen polytheists are lost, but then, on the other hand, says that all the elect will be delivered from faith in false gods."
I have only allowed the possibility of the effectual calling of geographically isolated peoples. I have never asserted their certain existence. How many times do I have to say that? My position is the balanced position of Gill, the LCF, and the Scripture - only extending to what lengths the Scripture does in regard to the unevangelized. And brother Garrett loves to represent me as affirming the certain existence of regenerated idolaters; if I misrepresented him like this he would be up in arms.
The fact is, that it is impossible to know that all people born in heathen lands, apart from the gospel, are eternally damned. I think the Scriptures establish that idolatrous heathens are damned, but I will not affirm the absolute, certain damnation of all individuals that have not been preached to by man (and neither did Gill or the LCF).
Brother Garrett stated:
"Brown wrote:
"Therefore, the historic position of the Primitive Baptists is the logical one of the LCF itself: that the fate of the heathen rests entirely on God, but that, if there were such persons, they certainly did not exist without the person of Christ as the object of their implanted faith."More doublespeak and contradiction! Christ is the object of faith for all who are born again! But, if this is so, then why argue for the regeneration of those who do not believe in Jesus, and who are heathen idolaters? If a "heathen" has "faith" in Christ, then why are you arguing for the idea of the heathen being saved without belief in Jesus and the Gospel?"
Garrett seems hopelessly confused. I have only ever argued for the possibility of regeneration by the Spirit alone among the heathen, not that such people, once regenerated, would remain in idolatrous worship! I have only argued against the certain damnation of those isolated from the gospel as preached by man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)