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.
No comments:
Post a Comment