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.