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.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
1 Peter 1:23-25
I would like to consider Stepehn Garrett's view of 1 Peter 1:23-25 in this entry, and, ultimately, to exegete this text in view of Peter's epistles.
As has been previously noted in a progressive fashion on this blog (here1, here2, and here3), Brother Garrett's view of the effectual call does not deny that the Spirit of God is the sole efficient cause of regeneration, and that the gospel is not instrumental to the effectual call except in the same sense that Primitive Baptists even acknowledge that the gospel is instrumental in manifesting and revealing the work of the Spirit.
The key distinction between Garrett's view and the Primitive Baptist view is that he wants to insist on a definition of the effectual call that includes immediate outward evidences of the work of the spirit of gospel faith and repentance. Now, the Primitive Baptist view in relation to the work of the spirit is that faith and repentance are necessary consequences of this operation, but the faith and repentance are inward consequences of the effectual call according to the spiritual perception of the person of Christ and antedate gospel confession however small a time elapses in a context in which the effectual call is made under the sound of the gospel.
Life eternal is to know God and Jesus Christ, and this knowledge is necessarily first spiritual knowledge before it is informed by gospel propositions. Brother Garrett must concede this or accede to the Campbellites. Further, unless he tears John 3:3-8 out of his Bible, he must concede that his insistence that the effectual call necessarily includes the outward evidence of public confession is unbiblical.
So, to argue as he does for his definition of the effectual call is nothing less than an affirmation that the Bible contradicts itself on the definition of being born again, or that he is not an Old Baptist because he disagrees with the framers of the LCF and John Gill who plainly taught that John 3:5-8 refers to an effectual call absent the outward call of the gospel.
It is perfectly clear, then, if we are to believe that there are no contradictions in Holy Scripture, that the sense in which the gospel may contain the living word and spirit of God is not to be confused with the gospel being the essential word and spirit of God.
This distinction is consistently made by Peter, as in 1 Peter 1:25, the proclamation of the spoken words of God in Scripture is not to be fully equated with God's speaking, as the words of God are declared by the gospel, not that the gospel is indivisible from God literally speaking. I point the reader to 2 Peter 3:5, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water...". Obviously this text refers to God's literal word to the express intention of the creation of the earth.
I suggest that Peter's usage of logos seems to refer to the express intention and creative force of God's literal, direct word to life. 2 Peter 3:5's 'word' is logos. So it is in 1 Peter 1:23. Now, the Greek term used for 1 Peter 1:25's 'word' is rhema, not logos. The gospel declaration is the rhema of God, as rhema indicates words generally expressed rather than words expressly spoken to some intention or reason. W.E. Vine notes that the essential distinction between rhema and logos is that logos refers to "reasoned words" whereas rhema indicates only what is expressed (A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Original Greek Words with their Precise Meanings for English Readers (McLean, Va.: MacDonald Publishing Co., n.d.), 1253).
This thematic distinction between Peter's use of logos and rhema is also observed in 1 Peter 2:2. The text in the King James is somewhat deceiving. The "sincere milk of the word" is a somewhat suspect translation because 'of the word' is not a phrase present in the Greek. The term logikon, is an adjective that modifies milk. In fact, this same word, as an adjective, is translated in the King James in Romans 12:1 as 'reasonable'. Also, the textus receptus does not have the 'eis soterian' at the end of the text, which is present in many other extant manuscripts such as the Alexandrian, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Ethiopic, according to Gill.
The essential point is that the term logos, again, as a description of an aspect of the milk - in that it is "divinely reasonable", is linked to the function of life and growth in the Christian's suckling at the truth of the Scripture unto salvation. The life-giving function of God's direct word in regeneration is then mediated in the rhema - the milk - to perfect the saints to the fulness of the stature of Christ. There is certainly an association of God 's direct creation with the gospel as the instrument of revelation of God's creation, but the epistles of Peter also separate the creative word of God, as in 2 Peter 3:5 from the scripture. Though there are earthly mothers capable of unnatural affection, it is contrary to 1 Peter 2:2 to envision God in the N.T. era fully withholding milk from His newborns - to those born under the sound of gospel. It is also perceived from this text how utterly irrational it is to conceive of a newborn refusing milk. What earthly infants behave as such, if indeed, they have been born at all, as Peter himself states in the next verse, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious."
The distinction of the spirit of God as the efficient cause of the effectual call already establishes that there is a distinction between life and the evidences of life in faith and repentance. The semantics of whether it is scriptural to refer to the efficient cause alone as the "effectual call" is a subordinate concern to the scriptural truth that it is God alone that is the author of spiritual life. Given that Brother Garrett must agree with this, his intention of appeal to 1 Peter 1:23-25 is illegitimate because he really does not believe that this passage, or any other passage in the New Testament, proves that the gospel is the efficient cause of spiritual life.
In fact, as we have seen, his appeal to this passage can only prove that the Holy Scripture contradicts itself with what it means to be "born again", or establishes that Brother Garrett is not an Old Baptist in disagreeing with what the framers of the LCF or John Gill argued from John 3:3-8.
As has been previously noted in a progressive fashion on this blog (here1, here2, and here3), Brother Garrett's view of the effectual call does not deny that the Spirit of God is the sole efficient cause of regeneration, and that the gospel is not instrumental to the effectual call except in the same sense that Primitive Baptists even acknowledge that the gospel is instrumental in manifesting and revealing the work of the Spirit.
The key distinction between Garrett's view and the Primitive Baptist view is that he wants to insist on a definition of the effectual call that includes immediate outward evidences of the work of the spirit of gospel faith and repentance. Now, the Primitive Baptist view in relation to the work of the spirit is that faith and repentance are necessary consequences of this operation, but the faith and repentance are inward consequences of the effectual call according to the spiritual perception of the person of Christ and antedate gospel confession however small a time elapses in a context in which the effectual call is made under the sound of the gospel.
Life eternal is to know God and Jesus Christ, and this knowledge is necessarily first spiritual knowledge before it is informed by gospel propositions. Brother Garrett must concede this or accede to the Campbellites. Further, unless he tears John 3:3-8 out of his Bible, he must concede that his insistence that the effectual call necessarily includes the outward evidence of public confession is unbiblical.
So, to argue as he does for his definition of the effectual call is nothing less than an affirmation that the Bible contradicts itself on the definition of being born again, or that he is not an Old Baptist because he disagrees with the framers of the LCF and John Gill who plainly taught that John 3:5-8 refers to an effectual call absent the outward call of the gospel.
It is perfectly clear, then, if we are to believe that there are no contradictions in Holy Scripture, that the sense in which the gospel may contain the living word and spirit of God is not to be confused with the gospel being the essential word and spirit of God.
This distinction is consistently made by Peter, as in 1 Peter 1:25, the proclamation of the spoken words of God in Scripture is not to be fully equated with God's speaking, as the words of God are declared by the gospel, not that the gospel is indivisible from God literally speaking. I point the reader to 2 Peter 3:5, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water...". Obviously this text refers to God's literal word to the express intention of the creation of the earth.
I suggest that Peter's usage of logos seems to refer to the express intention and creative force of God's literal, direct word to life. 2 Peter 3:5's 'word' is logos. So it is in 1 Peter 1:23. Now, the Greek term used for 1 Peter 1:25's 'word' is rhema, not logos. The gospel declaration is the rhema of God, as rhema indicates words generally expressed rather than words expressly spoken to some intention or reason. W.E. Vine notes that the essential distinction between rhema and logos is that logos refers to "reasoned words" whereas rhema indicates only what is expressed (A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Original Greek Words with their Precise Meanings for English Readers (McLean, Va.: MacDonald Publishing Co., n.d.), 1253).
This thematic distinction between Peter's use of logos and rhema is also observed in 1 Peter 2:2. The text in the King James is somewhat deceiving. The "sincere milk of the word" is a somewhat suspect translation because 'of the word' is not a phrase present in the Greek. The term logikon, is an adjective that modifies milk. In fact, this same word, as an adjective, is translated in the King James in Romans 12:1 as 'reasonable'. Also, the textus receptus does not have the 'eis soterian' at the end of the text, which is present in many other extant manuscripts such as the Alexandrian, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Ethiopic, according to Gill.
The essential point is that the term logos, again, as a description of an aspect of the milk - in that it is "divinely reasonable", is linked to the function of life and growth in the Christian's suckling at the truth of the Scripture unto salvation. The life-giving function of God's direct word in regeneration is then mediated in the rhema - the milk - to perfect the saints to the fulness of the stature of Christ. There is certainly an association of God 's direct creation with the gospel as the instrument of revelation of God's creation, but the epistles of Peter also separate the creative word of God, as in 2 Peter 3:5 from the scripture. Though there are earthly mothers capable of unnatural affection, it is contrary to 1 Peter 2:2 to envision God in the N.T. era fully withholding milk from His newborns - to those born under the sound of gospel. It is also perceived from this text how utterly irrational it is to conceive of a newborn refusing milk. What earthly infants behave as such, if indeed, they have been born at all, as Peter himself states in the next verse, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious."
The distinction of the spirit of God as the efficient cause of the effectual call already establishes that there is a distinction between life and the evidences of life in faith and repentance. The semantics of whether it is scriptural to refer to the efficient cause alone as the "effectual call" is a subordinate concern to the scriptural truth that it is God alone that is the author of spiritual life. Given that Brother Garrett must agree with this, his intention of appeal to 1 Peter 1:23-25 is illegitimate because he really does not believe that this passage, or any other passage in the New Testament, proves that the gospel is the efficient cause of spiritual life.
In fact, as we have seen, his appeal to this passage can only prove that the Holy Scripture contradicts itself with what it means to be "born again", or establishes that Brother Garrett is not an Old Baptist in disagreeing with what the framers of the LCF or John Gill argued from John 3:3-8.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Garrett's Concluding Remarks on Hebrews 3 and 4
Brother Garrett stated:
"In these words brother Jason does not seem to have any serious objection to the "rest"being equated with receiving "the full eternal inheritance." Then why all the hubbub? Further, I never objected to the idea of there being a "temporal entering," but simply argued that an entering of the rest, in time, was not the focus of the Apostle in those chapters.
But, it seems clear that the chief problem for Jason and the Hardshells, in view of rest being an eternal rest, is in the fact that Paul restricts entrance into God's eternal rest to those who are Gospel believers. But, Hardshells do not limit entrance into God's rest to Gospel believers only."
In an evident context of impending apostasy, the Hebrew epistle was written to professed Christian Jews that were teetering on the brink of falling back into Judaism under the pressure of persecution. Hebrews is written to the visible community of believers - professed Christians - to whom the promises of God are already evident.
Now, Brother Garrett infers from Hebrews that those who do not receive the promises of God in the gospel in time are eternally damned. In this he is rebuked by the plain declaration of Hebrews 11:13, 39, and 40. 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. He cannot say that there is no difference because the gospel dispensation gives gospel dispensation believers, "some better thing". If it was the view of the Apostle that there was no substantive difference, surely he would not have asserted that they, "died in faith having not received the promises", which emphasis Garrett must deny in order to defend a standard of knowledge for eternal life that is plainly controverted by Paul.
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.
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".
Brother Garrett stated:
"Is this an admission that Gospel unbelievers will not inherit eternal rest? What about the unbelieving heathen? They have not been converted, and so have not entered into the rest of God even now. Thus, if only those who have entered God's rest now, in conversion, are the only ones who will enter the eternal rest, then Jason holds a position that is not in keeping with today's Hardshells. When Jason speaks of those "that truly believe," does he not mean the same as Paul, i.e., those who have believed the Gospel? Is this not a cognitive believing? Does it not embrace the propositions of the Gospel?"
Hebrews asserts that gospel unbelievers have no rational basis to hope for eternal rest. Those apart from gospel revelation have no gospel knowledge as a basis to hope for anything but the damnation of God. The rest of God that gospel believers enjoy in time is a more sure word of prophecy. There is no rational basis to affirm that those outside of gospel revelation will enjoy the eternal rest of God, nor is there any rational basis to affirm that those that depart from the living God by rejecting the gospel will enjoy eternal rest. All of this follows from the fact that Paul asserts gospel belief as the only sufficient grounds for hope (Hebrews 3:14).
However, Brother Garrett admits that some regenerate individuals, i.e. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, did not inherit the promise of God in Canaan because of disobedience, though their disobedience was in instances, not habitual. Though I do not believe that Paul's reference in that "faithless generation" was to the regenerate among them who certainly could not be described as Paul quotes in Hebrews 3:10, "they do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways", Moses, Aaron, and Miriam still prove that the regenerate can fail to temporally inherit the promises of God, as King Josiah was also killed for his disobedience.
Now, the promised rest of Canaan was a temporal promise of God, and, while analogous to the promise of eternal life, should not be fully equated with it (manifestly, as they did not enter heaven by crossing Jordan); else it is no longer an analogy. What the entrance into Canaan's land was a direct example of, and not an analogy to, was the temporal belief necessary to enter the temporal rest of God (the contingent promises of God to the visible faith community). Garrett mistakes the temporal entry into Canaan as a mere analogy of eternal reward, which it is, but the direct reference of the entry is to the contingent, temporal promises of God.
Notice that Paul quotes the O.T. promise in Psalms 95:7 in Hebrews 3:7 and 13, which is available TODAY. 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 as the same analogy in the example of O.T. Israel, but a direct reference of the same covenant promise made to Israel.
That Paul does not limit the promises of God to eternal rest is also evident in Hebrews 6:13-15. The covenant promises of God are not limited to the promise of eternal life, but also include temporal promises contingent on obedience. Moses failed to inherit the temporal promise of God of Canaan's land through disobedience, which is a direct reference to the manner that the regenerate of the gospel dispensation can fail to enter into God's rest, but is analogous to the failure of the non-elect to inherit eternal life, as the majority of unregenerate Jews whose carcasses fell in the wilderness.
What Brother Garrett fails to consider is that the association of temporal obedience to the gospel to eternal salvation is primarily epistemic in it's application, not metaphysical. There is no way to know whether one is actually in vital union with Christ without gospel belief and obedience. It does not follow from this that vital union is impossible without propositional knowledge or critical cognizance of the union, as the spirit of God is the efficient cause of vital union and the preservation of the elect in vital union. Certainly, the spirit's instrument of preservation is faith and the spiritual perception of Christ as the object of faith, but this is distinguishable from the clearest intellectual cognizance of the vital union in the most knowledgeable of the regenerate elect.
Reality is not dictated by our intellectual knowledge of it; rather, knowledge is reflective of reality. Surely there is a correlation, but what is real is the foundation of what is known to be real. What is known is not the foundation of what is real, which is the philosophical and Biblical truth in which most of Christendom, and, even, the atheistic, secular world errs. It seems a common habit of man to forever arrogantly confound reality with what he apprehends of it.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason admits that the context of Hebrews 3 & 4 deals with "eternal rest." He says that this "exhortation" is given in time. But, no one denies this. Jason admits that sinners are exhorted to believe and thereby be assured of entering God's eternal rest. I know that Jason's brethren will not agree with him in affirming that people are exhorted to enter God's eternal rest."
I want to note two things here. First, my Primitive Baptist brethren all concede that the sense in which people are exhorted to enter into the rest of God is in entering the temporal rest of God, which is a foretaste of the eternal rest. No PB would disagree with that. No one, not even Garrett, can argue that Paul is exhorting Christians to enter the literal eternal rest of God because the literal rest cannot be fully entered until death. So, the sense in which people can be exhorted is only to the end of being personally assured of the final rest. In that the temporal rest is a foretaste of the eternal rest, there is a logical sense that all Primitive Baptists are exhorting people to the eternal rest of God when they exhort them to the temporal rest, as these two are not fully separable.
Second, I have said over and over again on this thread of articles that temporal rest is analogous and a foretaste of the eternal rest of God. In this way, the context of Hebrews 3 and 4 is ultimately about the eternal promise of eternal salvation by God, but the temporal promises made to O.T. Israel and any present communities of believers are analogous to the eternal promise of God that is made certain to the children of God by God's preservation of them in faith and general obedience (Hebrews 3:6, 14).
The difference between the eternal promise of God and temporal promises is that God effects the former, but the sense of their analogy is that people can only be certain of the former by the latter.
Brother Garrett stated:
Jason contradicts himself in these words. He says that he agrees that "the exhortation"is in order "to enter into the eternal rest," but then says that such an exhortation "makes no sense." How can he agree with it and then say it makes no sense? Is it not attacking his own stated view?"
Further, it is not true that the exhortation would not make sense if it were confined to entering eternal rest. Other Scriptures speak of laboring and striving for final salvation. Notice these passages:
"Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain." (I Cor. 9: 24)
"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (Phil. 3: 8, 9)
If the Corinthians had already obtained the prize, then why is Paul exhorting them to run in order to obtain it? Further, the "race" is correlated to the Christian's life service, and thus the end of the race is the end of his life and service. I see a parallel between Paul's exhortation to "run that you may obtain" and his exhortation to "labor to enter into God's rest."
Even though Paul had been initially saved in conversion, yet he still labors that he "may win Christ," and to be finally "found in him."
I hardly contradicted myself because I only conceded the association of the events of time with the eternal reality. I did not concede that eternity hinges on time. Brother Garrett, however, references these texts with a liberality that is surely flirtatious with such heresy. A degree of perseverance is a temporal reality because the elect are preserved by the power of God.
The texts that Brother Garrett quotes establish that eternal salvation is effected by God in time. Men are not finally redeemed as they live until they are glorified at the coming of Christ, so they should take heed to their calling and election, not arrogantly affirm that they stand as certainly regenerate in Christ. The texts quoted establish that it is irrational to affirm a future eternal salvation when sin is not mortified and the gospel kingdom not fully enjoyed. The sense in which Paul "obtains" final, eternal salvation is from the sense in which temporal preservation and sanctification are the necessary effects of the spirit's presence in the inner man. Where any degree of such efforts as Paul's are absent, so is the influence and presence of the spirit absent (Romans 8:9,10). So, in terms of the effects of the spirit's presence, there is a sense in which final, eternal salvation is "obtained" or progressed toward by the regenerate as the effect of being effectually called.
This progressive obtainment (sanctification) is part of the provision of God of eternal salvation, and is the necessary effect of that provision, and it is no more obtained here than it was in the covenant of grace before the world was. Some degree of "running" in sanctification is the necessary effect of the predestination of God. What is specifically obtained is not final salvation, as this cannot be fully realized in time, but a greater conformity to the image of Christ by the knowledge and strength of assurance of final salvation and of being known of God in the covenant of grace (Galatians 4:9). It is an ill-advised emphasis to take these texts outside of the whole counsel of God as Brother Garrett seems to uncritically apply them here.
Logically, Brother Garrett cannot affirm that the basis of man's obtainment of eternal salvation is his actions in time. Man's actions in time are simply the effects of this obtainment, and, as part and parcel of the obtainment, any sampling of the ordo salutis could be said to "obtain" man eternal salvation - yet only obtain it in part and process of the whole. The texts he quoted reference a part of the obtaining of eternal salvation, and is not indicative of the basis of the whole.
Therefore, the basis of Garrett's argument that it is by such obtainment that the whole of eternal salvation can be obtained is facile, and as shallow of the whole counsel of God as to quote Romans 10:13 and imagine that God, with bated breath, waits for man's confession of belief to elect man from eternity. I find such views of the Holy Scripture utterly repugnant because they reek of the odious assertion of the flesh, "I am the center of the universe." It shocks me that Garrett wants to embrace ignorant applications of mainstream Christianity yet reject what he considers the shallow, ignorant, and non-wholistic applications of some Primitive Baptists. Consistency thou art a jewel?
It is clear that Brother Garrett, though he claims otherwise, cannot actually affirm that the passages he quotes make the obtainment of eternity contingent on time, but that the effect of God's decree from eternity entails some degree of temporal sanctification. Therefore, exhortations to temporal obedience are exhortations of consistency with profession and what God, presumable to the profession of the faith of the individual, has decreed, not exhortation to inherit eternity on the sole basis of obedience. Garrett's emphasis cannot be legitimately emphasized apart from the greater emphasis of the entire counsel of God: that the Lord knoweth them that are His.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
The Fulton Confession Contra Garrett
Brother Garrett wrote recently (here):
"In this "Fulton Confession," the Hardshells twisted and distorted the clear statements of the Confession in the same way they had begun to twist Scripture in support of their denial of means, absolute predestination of all things, and perseverance. I will be presenting a short series on the "Hardshells and the 1689 London Confession.""
This is a typical claim of Stephen Garrett. Why he cannot understand the difference between clarification and perversion I'll never know. The LCF was intentionally vague or lacked a definitive stance on certain points. This is certainly observed in it's distinction between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" means of God in the effectual call. How can the Fulton Primitive Baptists be blamed for clarifying the LCF when the LCF itself allowed for both infralapsarian and supralapsarian Calvinism, even by Brother Garrett's own admission?
I have already shown in two prior postings (here and here) the ways that the LCF upbraids Garrett's certain declaration of two points: (1) the effectual call is only (not even just "ordinarily" like the LCF) by both Word and Spirit, and (2) the certain, universal damnation of all adults incapable of being outwardly called by the Word.
The LCF was a much more honest interpretation of Scripture than Garrett's, it reflected an effort to state the teaching of scripture as the scripture presents teaching rather than claiming for certain and indubitable what cannot possibly be known for certain. Take a lesson, "Hardshell" Garrett, and take for possible what is not certain.
I would like to examine the Fulton Footnotes on each of the doctrines Brother Garrett lists above, and show that wisdom prevailed, not ulterior motives of perversion.
Let us first examine Garrett's claim that the Fulton Confession "twisted" the LCF on the instrumentality of the gospel in the effectual call.
The Fulton Footnote to Chapter 10, Section 1, "Of Effectual Calling":
"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"
The Fulton Footnote to Chapter 14, Section 1, "Of Saving Faith":
"By the words "faith as ordinarily wrought by the Word" we are taught to distinguish between life and the motions or fruits of life, because faith as one of the acts of life may be instrumentally produced by the Word. (Rom. 10:17) While life itself is the immediate gift of the Almighty (Rom. 7:23), and is antecedent to and the foundation of faith."
Why does Garrett suppose that the Fulton brethren were not simply saying that the Word is not the efficient cause of the effectual call? The language in the LCF could be, and probably was, perverted by Campbellites. The Fulton brethren even assert in the first footnote that the sinners are, "prepared by the spirit to answer the gospel", and in the second footnote, "life is the foundation of faith", so why does he envision the radical extremes with which some modern Primitives rip life away from truth?
Can there be any doubt that these brethren believed that life was expressly "unto truth"? And can there be any doubt that the modern Primitive Baptists that decry this confession do so because their categorical separation of life from truth is no where supported from this confession?
Brother Garrett should agree with the Fulton footnotes here over against the Campbellites. Where does the Fulton footnotes even clearly disallow Garrett's and the LCF's view that the effectual call to adults ordinarily is wrought through the gospel? The Fulton's clarification is that it is the spirit of God alone that effects life, and this necessary "first contact" between God and man is antecedent to repentance and faith. They did not say that the effectual call may not include faith and repentance, but, rather, were jealous that this section not be employed by some to controvert section 2 of the LCF.
Next, let us consider Fulton Footnotes on the "Absolute Predestination of All Things".
The Footnote to Chapter 3, Section 1, "Of God's Decrees":
"This clearly distinguishes between God's attitude to sin and his attitude and relation to holiness. A failure to make this distinction has been a fruitful source of division and distress of our holy cause, and a failure to so distinguish between God's permissive and overruling decree of sin and his causative decree of holiness will ever cause distress and confusion among our people. This distinction is expressed in the last clause of Section 4, of Chapter V: "Which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth and otherwise ordereth and governeth in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God." etc. Chapter IV., last part of Section 1: "Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to seduce Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who without any compulsion did willfully transgress the law of their creation and the command given unto them in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory." We believe that God is perfect in wisdom and knowledge, knowing all things both good and evil from the beginning that would take place in time. That he is a Perfect Sovereign over all things, and that he absolutely and causatively predestinated all his works of creation and eternal salvation of his elect."
The Footnote to Chapter 5, Section 4, "Of Providence":
"We understand this section to teach that while God does not cause men to sin, nor is his predestination in its attitude to sin causative, yet that he exercises such a control over all his creatures as that all chance and uncertainty is excluded from the universe."
I have not found the Fulton Confession to controvert the use of the word "predestination" in reference to God's providence. In the latter footnote, it is plain they were zealous to ensure that God's predestination of sin is not causative, but a decree of permission - the sin arising as a direct result of the will of the creature. From the latter footnote, it seems clear that they did not object to the use of "predestination" in reference to God's general purposes, but the essential point is that the predestination of God encompassed both His causative and permissive will. Garrett illegitimately accuses the Fulton brethren of denying God's predestination of all things, therefore.
As far as the Fulton brethren on the perseverance of the saints, there are no footnotes to that section. Why does Brother Garrett accuse the Fulton Confession of perversion when there are no footnotes to that doctrine? This doctrine was historically embraced by all Primitive Baptists. Brother Garrett seems like he hasn't read the Fulton Footnotes. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
So, I am at a loss to understand Garrett's accusation against the Fulton Confession as a perversion. It was a clarification by the express intention of the framers of the Footnotes in the Preface and General Address. He is completely unfounded to accuse the brethren at Fulton, Kentucky of scriptural perversion. Really, the Fulton Confession defends itself against the baseless accusations of Stephen Garrett.
"In this "Fulton Confession," the Hardshells twisted and distorted the clear statements of the Confession in the same way they had begun to twist Scripture in support of their denial of means, absolute predestination of all things, and perseverance. I will be presenting a short series on the "Hardshells and the 1689 London Confession.""
This is a typical claim of Stephen Garrett. Why he cannot understand the difference between clarification and perversion I'll never know. The LCF was intentionally vague or lacked a definitive stance on certain points. This is certainly observed in it's distinction between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" means of God in the effectual call. How can the Fulton Primitive Baptists be blamed for clarifying the LCF when the LCF itself allowed for both infralapsarian and supralapsarian Calvinism, even by Brother Garrett's own admission?
I have already shown in two prior postings (here and here) the ways that the LCF upbraids Garrett's certain declaration of two points: (1) the effectual call is only (not even just "ordinarily" like the LCF) by both Word and Spirit, and (2) the certain, universal damnation of all adults incapable of being outwardly called by the Word.
The LCF was a much more honest interpretation of Scripture than Garrett's, it reflected an effort to state the teaching of scripture as the scripture presents teaching rather than claiming for certain and indubitable what cannot possibly be known for certain. Take a lesson, "Hardshell" Garrett, and take for possible what is not certain.
I would like to examine the Fulton Footnotes on each of the doctrines Brother Garrett lists above, and show that wisdom prevailed, not ulterior motives of perversion.
Let us first examine Garrett's claim that the Fulton Confession "twisted" the LCF on the instrumentality of the gospel in the effectual call.
The Fulton Footnote to Chapter 10, Section 1, "Of Effectual Calling":
"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"
The Fulton Footnote to Chapter 14, Section 1, "Of Saving Faith":
"By the words "faith as ordinarily wrought by the Word" we are taught to distinguish between life and the motions or fruits of life, because faith as one of the acts of life may be instrumentally produced by the Word. (Rom. 10:17) While life itself is the immediate gift of the Almighty (Rom. 7:23), and is antecedent to and the foundation of faith."
Why does Garrett suppose that the Fulton brethren were not simply saying that the Word is not the efficient cause of the effectual call? The language in the LCF could be, and probably was, perverted by Campbellites. The Fulton brethren even assert in the first footnote that the sinners are, "prepared by the spirit to answer the gospel", and in the second footnote, "life is the foundation of faith", so why does he envision the radical extremes with which some modern Primitives rip life away from truth?
Can there be any doubt that these brethren believed that life was expressly "unto truth"? And can there be any doubt that the modern Primitive Baptists that decry this confession do so because their categorical separation of life from truth is no where supported from this confession?
Brother Garrett should agree with the Fulton footnotes here over against the Campbellites. Where does the Fulton footnotes even clearly disallow Garrett's and the LCF's view that the effectual call to adults ordinarily is wrought through the gospel? The Fulton's clarification is that it is the spirit of God alone that effects life, and this necessary "first contact" between God and man is antecedent to repentance and faith. They did not say that the effectual call may not include faith and repentance, but, rather, were jealous that this section not be employed by some to controvert section 2 of the LCF.
Next, let us consider Fulton Footnotes on the "Absolute Predestination of All Things".
The Footnote to Chapter 3, Section 1, "Of God's Decrees":
"This clearly distinguishes between God's attitude to sin and his attitude and relation to holiness. A failure to make this distinction has been a fruitful source of division and distress of our holy cause, and a failure to so distinguish between God's permissive and overruling decree of sin and his causative decree of holiness will ever cause distress and confusion among our people. This distinction is expressed in the last clause of Section 4, of Chapter V: "Which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth and otherwise ordereth and governeth in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God." etc. Chapter IV., last part of Section 1: "Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to seduce Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who without any compulsion did willfully transgress the law of their creation and the command given unto them in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory." We believe that God is perfect in wisdom and knowledge, knowing all things both good and evil from the beginning that would take place in time. That he is a Perfect Sovereign over all things, and that he absolutely and causatively predestinated all his works of creation and eternal salvation of his elect."
The Footnote to Chapter 5, Section 4, "Of Providence":
"We understand this section to teach that while God does not cause men to sin, nor is his predestination in its attitude to sin causative, yet that he exercises such a control over all his creatures as that all chance and uncertainty is excluded from the universe."
I have not found the Fulton Confession to controvert the use of the word "predestination" in reference to God's providence. In the latter footnote, it is plain they were zealous to ensure that God's predestination of sin is not causative, but a decree of permission - the sin arising as a direct result of the will of the creature. From the latter footnote, it seems clear that they did not object to the use of "predestination" in reference to God's general purposes, but the essential point is that the predestination of God encompassed both His causative and permissive will. Garrett illegitimately accuses the Fulton brethren of denying God's predestination of all things, therefore.
As far as the Fulton brethren on the perseverance of the saints, there are no footnotes to that section. Why does Brother Garrett accuse the Fulton Confession of perversion when there are no footnotes to that doctrine? This doctrine was historically embraced by all Primitive Baptists. Brother Garrett seems like he hasn't read the Fulton Footnotes. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
So, I am at a loss to understand Garrett's accusation against the Fulton Confession as a perversion. It was a clarification by the express intention of the framers of the Footnotes in the Preface and General Address. He is completely unfounded to accuse the brethren at Fulton, Kentucky of scriptural perversion. Really, the Fulton Confession defends itself against the baseless accusations of Stephen Garrett.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Garrett on Resting From Christian Labor
Brother Garrett stated:
"Even Hardshells sing these songs, and yet, as we have seen from Jason Brown's rebuttal to my writings on God's rest, they must do so in contradiction to their stated beliefs. To Hardshells, entering Canaan's land is equated with entering a Hardshell church! They sing - "to Canaan's land I'm on my way, where the soul of man never dies," but they sing what they consider to be error!"
This is false. Primitive Baptists do not fully separate the temporal rest of Christians from the final eternal rest of heaven. The temporal rest is a foretaste of the eternal rest. Entering Canaan's land in time is not fully equated to the full eternal inheritance, but it is reflective of the "already" and "not yet" kingdom theology of Gerhardus Vos.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Certainly there is rest enjoyed by Christians even in the wilderness. They rest in the finished work of Christ. Their hearts and minds no longer toil in anxiety. They enjoy mental rest."
And this is the sense of "rest" that believers enjoy in Hebrews 4:3, as also asserted by John Gill.
Brother Garrett stated:
"In my last entry I cited A. T. Robertson who stated that the present tense of eiserxometa(do enter) is to be seen as an example of what is called in Greek emphatic futuristic present indicative. Jason Brown thought that this was not possible, though he gave no evidence to refute what Robertson said. Perhaps he knows more Greek than Robertson? Jason is apparently ignorant of the "futuristic present" as used in Scripture. So, let me enlighten him."
Sure I gave evidence. The fact is that "do enter" is not future, just as the belief of those that enter is not future. The "shall enter" that Paul quotes from the O.T. is future indicative, but not the "do enter". Even if it is conceded that the entering in is future, it could simply refer to the full eternal inheritance, not that there is not still a temporal entering, which is consistent with the full eternal entering.
All of the futuristic present examples Brother Garrett gave indicate a present intention or action that is integral to the future occurrence. It is in this sense that his effort to exegete the "rest" of God as fully future fails because it is integral to entering into the full eternal rest of God that true believers are depicted as already resting in the present. Those that truly believe are already resting, and it is those that will fully inherit the eternal rest that do truly believe and do truly rest, even in the present.
Brother Garrett stated:
"How does one determine the time of the present tense verb? Context! The context of Hebrews 3 & 4 show that the writer focuses upon a future entering of the land of rest, as I have shown. He exhorts his readers to strive to enter this rest, which would not be the case if they were already viewed as being in the rest."
Even if this is true, and I believe it is, the exhortation to enter into the eternal rest is in time. If there was not a sense that believers could enter into an earnest of this rest in time, the exhortation makes no sense. The whole point of the exhortation is that true believers can enjoy the eternal rest in time, and it is only by pressing into this rest in time that the joys of eternal rest can temporally be enjoyed (and the fear of falling short of it be overcome).
Brother Garrett stated:
"Further, it is an error of Jason Brown to attempt to make the entering a continual process or one of degrees. He says this in order to deal with the force of the future aspect of Paul's words about striving to enter. But, there are no degrees in this entering, as there is in sanctification. One is either in or he is out. He cannot be half in and half out. Just as the "ceasing" from toil is not progressive or linear, so neither is the "entering." If verse 3 is interpreted as affirming that believers have already entered the rest, it would make no sense to exhort them to enter. If Jason is already in my house, it would be foolish for me to exhort him to enter it."
There are no degrees in the entry to the final eternal rest. But the sense in which Christians should fear, lest any of them seem to come short of it (4:1), certainly admits of degrees; otherwise Paul would have been clear about what "seeming" evidences would entail such shortcoming. Any sin is such a shortcoming. The whole point of Paul in verse 3, and the whole context, is to question the quality of the presumed belief in his audience. Paul is not asserting that they are presently true believers, but that they must take care to ensure that they are true believers because only true believers enter the rest of God in any sense - in time or eternity.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Why is it that Jason Brown argues so intensely against the view that makes this entering to be Heaven? Is it not because he does not limit entrance into Heaven to only Gospel believers? Is it not because he rejects the idea that perseverance is necessary for being eternally saved?"
I do argue that the rest of God is ultimately eternal rest. But the sense in which Christians are exhorted to labor to enter it, presumes that true believers can enter a foretaste of this rest in time. So, even if I were to concede that the "do enter" of verse 3, referred to a future entering of all true believers into eternal rest, it would still prove that a foretaste of this rest can be enjoyed in time, and that it must be so enjoyed, if there is to be any rational hope of the full eternal rest of God.
Above all, Hebrews 4:3 does not exclude a temporal entering in by true believers in the present, either by implication or by word denotation, and it is to true belief that Paul is exhorting the Hebrews.
"Even Hardshells sing these songs, and yet, as we have seen from Jason Brown's rebuttal to my writings on God's rest, they must do so in contradiction to their stated beliefs. To Hardshells, entering Canaan's land is equated with entering a Hardshell church! They sing - "to Canaan's land I'm on my way, where the soul of man never dies," but they sing what they consider to be error!"
This is false. Primitive Baptists do not fully separate the temporal rest of Christians from the final eternal rest of heaven. The temporal rest is a foretaste of the eternal rest. Entering Canaan's land in time is not fully equated to the full eternal inheritance, but it is reflective of the "already" and "not yet" kingdom theology of Gerhardus Vos.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Certainly there is rest enjoyed by Christians even in the wilderness. They rest in the finished work of Christ. Their hearts and minds no longer toil in anxiety. They enjoy mental rest."
And this is the sense of "rest" that believers enjoy in Hebrews 4:3, as also asserted by John Gill.
Brother Garrett stated:
"In my last entry I cited A. T. Robertson who stated that the present tense of eiserxometa(do enter) is to be seen as an example of what is called in Greek emphatic futuristic present indicative. Jason Brown thought that this was not possible, though he gave no evidence to refute what Robertson said. Perhaps he knows more Greek than Robertson? Jason is apparently ignorant of the "futuristic present" as used in Scripture. So, let me enlighten him."
Sure I gave evidence. The fact is that "do enter" is not future, just as the belief of those that enter is not future. The "shall enter" that Paul quotes from the O.T. is future indicative, but not the "do enter". Even if it is conceded that the entering in is future, it could simply refer to the full eternal inheritance, not that there is not still a temporal entering, which is consistent with the full eternal entering.
All of the futuristic present examples Brother Garrett gave indicate a present intention or action that is integral to the future occurrence. It is in this sense that his effort to exegete the "rest" of God as fully future fails because it is integral to entering into the full eternal rest of God that true believers are depicted as already resting in the present. Those that truly believe are already resting, and it is those that will fully inherit the eternal rest that do truly believe and do truly rest, even in the present.
Brother Garrett stated:
"How does one determine the time of the present tense verb? Context! The context of Hebrews 3 & 4 show that the writer focuses upon a future entering of the land of rest, as I have shown. He exhorts his readers to strive to enter this rest, which would not be the case if they were already viewed as being in the rest."
Even if this is true, and I believe it is, the exhortation to enter into the eternal rest is in time. If there was not a sense that believers could enter into an earnest of this rest in time, the exhortation makes no sense. The whole point of the exhortation is that true believers can enjoy the eternal rest in time, and it is only by pressing into this rest in time that the joys of eternal rest can temporally be enjoyed (and the fear of falling short of it be overcome).
Brother Garrett stated:
"Further, it is an error of Jason Brown to attempt to make the entering a continual process or one of degrees. He says this in order to deal with the force of the future aspect of Paul's words about striving to enter. But, there are no degrees in this entering, as there is in sanctification. One is either in or he is out. He cannot be half in and half out. Just as the "ceasing" from toil is not progressive or linear, so neither is the "entering." If verse 3 is interpreted as affirming that believers have already entered the rest, it would make no sense to exhort them to enter. If Jason is already in my house, it would be foolish for me to exhort him to enter it."
There are no degrees in the entry to the final eternal rest. But the sense in which Christians should fear, lest any of them seem to come short of it (4:1), certainly admits of degrees; otherwise Paul would have been clear about what "seeming" evidences would entail such shortcoming. Any sin is such a shortcoming. The whole point of Paul in verse 3, and the whole context, is to question the quality of the presumed belief in his audience. Paul is not asserting that they are presently true believers, but that they must take care to ensure that they are true believers because only true believers enter the rest of God in any sense - in time or eternity.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Why is it that Jason Brown argues so intensely against the view that makes this entering to be Heaven? Is it not because he does not limit entrance into Heaven to only Gospel believers? Is it not because he rejects the idea that perseverance is necessary for being eternally saved?"
I do argue that the rest of God is ultimately eternal rest. But the sense in which Christians are exhorted to labor to enter it, presumes that true believers can enter a foretaste of this rest in time. So, even if I were to concede that the "do enter" of verse 3, referred to a future entering of all true believers into eternal rest, it would still prove that a foretaste of this rest can be enjoyed in time, and that it must be so enjoyed, if there is to be any rational hope of the full eternal rest of God.
Above all, Hebrews 4:3 does not exclude a temporal entering in by true believers in the present, either by implication or by word denotation, and it is to true belief that Paul is exhorting the Hebrews.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Fralick on Emphasizing the Wrong Thing
Brother Fralick stated (here) that I confound the Primitive Baptist view of "Timely Salvation" with the doctrine of sanctification. I have stated in previous blogs (particularly here):
"I have not really changed my mind regarding the doctrine of salvation, but I am open to consider anything Brother Garrett has to say. What I truly believe is that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of what they label "Timely Salvation" is taught in the Bible as progressive sanctification and conversion - Elder David Pyles stated this in his sermon on Romans 1:16 - http://primitivebaptistsermons.org/sermons.php?page=12&st=&searchFor=, and that what is "timely" is perfected in eternity and what is eternal is manifested in time."
I have not hid the fact that I take the Primitive Baptist view of "Timely Salvation" to be the doctrine of sanctification and gospel conversion. I have also stated many times that the Scripture does not present sanctification and gospel conversion as mere options to those truly regenerate. Some degree of both is the necessary effect of regeneration (the degree of conversion is, of course, relative to special revelation).
Primitive Baptist ministers that have argued with Brother Fralick on this point, and would make sanctification and gospel conversion (to those under the sound of the gospel) completely and utterly optional are teaching heresy. This is hollow log heresy. It is "carnal Christian" absurdity and blatant antinomianism. Now, I doubt many are actually teaching this or mean to imply it, but they may "paint themselves into a corner" to find "differences" between themselves and Calvinists. There are some ignorant ministers who don't think for themselves, and simply tout the party line of what they take to be Primitive Baptist distinctives, placing greater premium on the thoughts of other ministers than "thus sayeth the Lord". If Brother Fralick would have had a more knowledgeable mentor in the faith he would still be with the Primitive Baptists.
Brother Fralick stated:
"In Brother Jason’s latest, he refers to it as “attaining to higher joys” as a Christian. The problem with such a definition is that it does not approach the major issues at hand, which has always been one of my criticisms of the teaching."
Brother Fralick refuses to see that any other definition of Timely Salvation than what I have given it is an abuse. The doctrine is abused as a tool of some to assert hollow log heresy, antinomianism, and universalism. Such usages do not disprove the Biblical legitimacy of salvation in time, obviously. I suppose his idea is, "why even use the term". Well, he should know that the term grew out of the Absoluter controversy among PB's. He should know the origin of it from that division. It's become a kind of "buzzword" among PB's to refer to the subjective side of salvation. I do not see that the concept is unbiblical. However, it is unbiblical when it is abused to suggest that the objective, eternal salvation in Christ is not evidenced in time to any degree. It is upon subjective belief in what Christ has accomplished that emphasis should be made.
Brother Fralick stated:
"Time salvation concerns the issue of what happens or does not happen after regeneration. Does the person who is regenerated go on to conversion to Christ or not? However, if Brother Jason really believes that all the elect will experience some measure of the subjective side of salvation, this is definitely a good starting point. The only step to be taken then is to affirm that this is wrought through the gospel (Acts 26:16-18; John 17:17-20; Romans 10:17; Eph. 5:26). Having followed Jason’s responses in his discussion with Brother Stephen I suspect that he will say the subjective reality is obtained via the gospel “for those under the sound of it”, but not for those who aren’t. Perhaps Brother Jason will enlighten us as to the degree of holiness and faith found in the regenerate heathen? Is it a "Christian" faith and holiness? Is it in his mind and heart?"
I have always affirmed that the regenerate are convicted and recognize the truth of the gospel when it is attended with the power of the spirit. I think all Primitive Baptists affirm this. What they deny is that the regenerate will necessarily openly manifest this belief in public confession. I think Romans 10:11 indicates that confession of faith is characteristic of true belief, and that those who truly believe will generally confess their faith, if not at one time then certainly eventually.
I have never asserted the certain existence of regenerate "heathen". If there were and are regenerate individuals in areas where men have not/did not preach the gospel, they would not be "heathen" after regeneration, save in reference to their general culture. My position is that God is not limited to man to save whom He wills, and that it is possible that God has effectually called men in heathen lands apart from special revelation. I think this was the position of the framers of the LCF and John Gill, though they went further to state that such measures would be "extraordinary" in terms of what they took to be God's "ordinary" method of effectually calling. I do not see how they can consistently come to such a distinction when they admit the possibility of effectual calling apart from the gospel in John 3:8.
As far as the degree of faith and holiness found in individuals that exist apart from the gospel, it is surely "some degree" of faith and holiness according to the Christ that dwells within them. More than this, who can say? No one can say for certain. It could be that God only has infants that die in infancy or the mentally incompetent in such lands. It could be that God provides adults who are regenerate in such lands gospel revelation by preachers at some point in their life. This seems to me to be intimated by Romans 8:19,21.
"I have not really changed my mind regarding the doctrine of salvation, but I am open to consider anything Brother Garrett has to say. What I truly believe is that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of what they label "Timely Salvation" is taught in the Bible as progressive sanctification and conversion - Elder David Pyles stated this in his sermon on Romans 1:16 - http://primitivebaptistsermons.org/sermons.php?page=12&st=&searchFor=, and that what is "timely" is perfected in eternity and what is eternal is manifested in time."
I have not hid the fact that I take the Primitive Baptist view of "Timely Salvation" to be the doctrine of sanctification and gospel conversion. I have also stated many times that the Scripture does not present sanctification and gospel conversion as mere options to those truly regenerate. Some degree of both is the necessary effect of regeneration (the degree of conversion is, of course, relative to special revelation).
Primitive Baptist ministers that have argued with Brother Fralick on this point, and would make sanctification and gospel conversion (to those under the sound of the gospel) completely and utterly optional are teaching heresy. This is hollow log heresy. It is "carnal Christian" absurdity and blatant antinomianism. Now, I doubt many are actually teaching this or mean to imply it, but they may "paint themselves into a corner" to find "differences" between themselves and Calvinists. There are some ignorant ministers who don't think for themselves, and simply tout the party line of what they take to be Primitive Baptist distinctives, placing greater premium on the thoughts of other ministers than "thus sayeth the Lord". If Brother Fralick would have had a more knowledgeable mentor in the faith he would still be with the Primitive Baptists.
Brother Fralick stated:
"In Brother Jason’s latest, he refers to it as “attaining to higher joys” as a Christian. The problem with such a definition is that it does not approach the major issues at hand, which has always been one of my criticisms of the teaching."
Brother Fralick refuses to see that any other definition of Timely Salvation than what I have given it is an abuse. The doctrine is abused as a tool of some to assert hollow log heresy, antinomianism, and universalism. Such usages do not disprove the Biblical legitimacy of salvation in time, obviously. I suppose his idea is, "why even use the term". Well, he should know that the term grew out of the Absoluter controversy among PB's. He should know the origin of it from that division. It's become a kind of "buzzword" among PB's to refer to the subjective side of salvation. I do not see that the concept is unbiblical. However, it is unbiblical when it is abused to suggest that the objective, eternal salvation in Christ is not evidenced in time to any degree. It is upon subjective belief in what Christ has accomplished that emphasis should be made.
Brother Fralick stated:
"Time salvation concerns the issue of what happens or does not happen after regeneration. Does the person who is regenerated go on to conversion to Christ or not? However, if Brother Jason really believes that all the elect will experience some measure of the subjective side of salvation, this is definitely a good starting point. The only step to be taken then is to affirm that this is wrought through the gospel (Acts 26:16-18; John 17:17-20; Romans 10:17; Eph. 5:26). Having followed Jason’s responses in his discussion with Brother Stephen I suspect that he will say the subjective reality is obtained via the gospel “for those under the sound of it”, but not for those who aren’t. Perhaps Brother Jason will enlighten us as to the degree of holiness and faith found in the regenerate heathen? Is it a "Christian" faith and holiness? Is it in his mind and heart?"
I have always affirmed that the regenerate are convicted and recognize the truth of the gospel when it is attended with the power of the spirit. I think all Primitive Baptists affirm this. What they deny is that the regenerate will necessarily openly manifest this belief in public confession. I think Romans 10:11 indicates that confession of faith is characteristic of true belief, and that those who truly believe will generally confess their faith, if not at one time then certainly eventually.
I have never asserted the certain existence of regenerate "heathen". If there were and are regenerate individuals in areas where men have not/did not preach the gospel, they would not be "heathen" after regeneration, save in reference to their general culture. My position is that God is not limited to man to save whom He wills, and that it is possible that God has effectually called men in heathen lands apart from special revelation. I think this was the position of the framers of the LCF and John Gill, though they went further to state that such measures would be "extraordinary" in terms of what they took to be God's "ordinary" method of effectually calling. I do not see how they can consistently come to such a distinction when they admit the possibility of effectual calling apart from the gospel in John 3:8.
As far as the degree of faith and holiness found in individuals that exist apart from the gospel, it is surely "some degree" of faith and holiness according to the Christ that dwells within them. More than this, who can say? No one can say for certain. It could be that God only has infants that die in infancy or the mentally incompetent in such lands. It could be that God provides adults who are regenerate in such lands gospel revelation by preachers at some point in their life. This seems to me to be intimated by Romans 8:19,21.
Garrett on Entering God's Rest
Again, I enjoyed Brother Garrett's careful consideration of the "rest" of God of Hebrews.
I find much truth in Brother Garrett's article, but it has a Calvinistic proximity to the truth without utter accuracy, just as the root confusion of faith and knowledge.
I concede to Brother Garrett and consider it error to argue that the intent of the author of Hebrews was to undermine the idea of temporal preservation of those truly called of the elect by the exhortation to press into the promised rest of God. Certainly, obedience is presented overwhelmingly as what is consistent with truly being effectually called (Hebrews 5:9), and that the promises of God are unto eternal inheritance.
But, it seems clear that the intent of the author cannot be to fully equate the promises of God with eternal heaven, or that the author does not present these promises as promises that can be enjoyed in time; even by just a cursory reading of Hebrews. Hebrews 4:11's "rest" is possessed in a temporal sense, as Brother Garrett admits hypothetically, but argues against in his article. He already concedes the principle of the point, though, he just doesn't want to concede it in this passage.
I want to begin by examining Hebrews 11:13, 39, and 40:
"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth (vs. 13)."
"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect (vs. 39,40)."
Obviously from these texts, O.T. saints did not, in a temporal sense, obtain the promises of God in the same way that N.T. believers can obtain and enjoy them. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the author of Hebrews fully equates obtaining the promises of God in time with obtaining them in eternity, as O.T. saints obviously did not obtain these promises equally with N.T. believers.
To argue as Brother Garrett does in Hebrews 4:3-11 against any temporal sense of obtaining the promises of God, contradicts what is obvious from these texts: that the promises of God are obtained and are applicable in their obtainment in time.
Now, this does not exclude the association of a temporal apprehension of these promises with the full obtainment of these promises in an eternal obtainment of them in Jesus Christ, but fully associates them. There is no basis to affirm eternal inheritance apart from laying hold on eternal inheritance in time.
Now, coming to Hebrews 4:3-11, Brother Garrett stated:
"It is based upon these words that credibility is given for seeing conversion as how Christians first enter into God's rest. Though this is not denied to be taught in Scripture, it does not seem to be what Paul is affirming in these words. For the words "do enter," A. T. Robertson says, is from the Greek word eiserxometa and is "emphatic futuristic present middle indicative of eiserxomai." In other words, "We are sure to enter in, we who believe." Thus, though the KJV seems to point to what is a present reality in translating as "do enter," the Greek shows that Paul is still looking to the future for fulfillment. All he is affirming is that true believers are the ones who will enter.
Since saved people have "ceased from" their own works for salvation, and have trusted in Christ alone for salvation, Paul's words in verses 9-11 are interpreted to be a reference to conversion and to a present entering into God's rest. But, if we are honest, we must confess that this is not likely the meaning of the Apostle."
First, Brother Garrett's analysis and use of A.T. Robertson is faulty. The words "do enter" in Hebrews 4:3 are only future in the latter use of 'eiserchomai'. The text contrasts the fact of present entering by those who believe in Eiserchometha, which is in the present tense, passive voice, and indicative mood, with eiseleusontai, which is in the future tense, middle voice, and indicative mood.
The text plainly asserts that those who believe have already entered into the rest of God, which destroys the idea that entering into the rest is excluded from a present, temporal reality. Brother Garrett is wresting this text in the Greek to apply the rest of God solely to eternal rest.
Next, Brother Garrett speaks of "being honest" with Paul's words in Hebrews 4:9-11, indeed let us be honest. From verse 3, it is clear that Paul states the fact that those that believe have already entered into the rest of God. Verse 9-11 plainly indicate that individuals that are truly the people of God, have a rest they need to press into. Surely, if they do not, it could mean that they are the "people of God" in name only, but it also could mean they have yet to enjoy the fullness of their eternal inheritance in time.
Brother Garrett stated:
"First, the works that God ceased from doing were good works, whereas the works that are ceased from, if the above interpretation is accepted, are sinful works. If we cease from our works "as God did from his," then we will be resting from honest toil, not from evil works.
Second, it does not make sense to interpret "he that is entered into his rest" and "ceased from his own works" as a reference to what has already been experienced and yet interpret "let us be diligent to enter into that rest" as also what has already been experienced. Why exhort to future entrance if it has already been entered?"
The sense in which the regenerate are exhorted to "cease from their labors" is not in the sense of the wickedness inherent to those deeds, though such deeds are at best commingled with evil, but from striving to establish their righteousness by works when this righteousness is established in Christ. God resting is not analogous to the rest in Christ that men are exhorted to rest in, except in the sense that God rested at all. Paul's point is that it is not untoward for man, therefore, to base his works on the finished work of Christ, resting as a point of basis on that which was, "finished from the foundation of the world (Hebrews 4:3)."
The second point of Brother Garrett only fails to make sense to him because he is wanting to disallow entering the rest in a temporal sense with having entered eternal rest in Christ. There could be a degree to which one has entered into the rest temporally, but still not be enjoying the full degree of gospel rest; hence, the exhortation. Verse 10 need not imply a contradiction with verse 11, not all to whom Paul writes are truly resting in Christ like they ought to be. Verse 10 refers to the ideal to be obtained, and verse 11 the exhortation to the ideal. The fact is, verse 10, like verse 3, establishes that some have already entered in a temporal sense into the rest with which Paul is contextually dealing.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Finally, the entire context of Hebrews 3 & 4 shows that a future and final deliverance is in view."
I agree that the entire context is of eternal inheritance in Christ, but this need not imply that what occurs in time is not associated with eternal inheritance. This inheritance is temporally enjoyed by those who labor to enter into it, and if one temporally fails to enter into the rest of God, they manifest that they were never partakers of Christ (Hebrews 3:14). A true possession of eternal inheritance is by those who are preserved by God in some degree of temporal faith, trusting in the sufficiency of God to save.
The fact that some believers died in the wilderness, as Moses, Miriam, and Aaron, not enjoying the full degree of the promised rest of God, does not prove that they were faithless like the majority of that generation that fell in the wilderness. I agree with Brother Garrett here. But it still proves that their disobedience prevented them from entering into the promised rest. They certainly should not be fully categorized with that faithless generation, but they are categorized among them in the sense that they did not enjoy in time the same degree of fullness of the rest of God as those that entered into that rest, like Joshua.
I find much truth in Brother Garrett's article, but it has a Calvinistic proximity to the truth without utter accuracy, just as the root confusion of faith and knowledge.
I concede to Brother Garrett and consider it error to argue that the intent of the author of Hebrews was to undermine the idea of temporal preservation of those truly called of the elect by the exhortation to press into the promised rest of God. Certainly, obedience is presented overwhelmingly as what is consistent with truly being effectually called (Hebrews 5:9), and that the promises of God are unto eternal inheritance.
But, it seems clear that the intent of the author cannot be to fully equate the promises of God with eternal heaven, or that the author does not present these promises as promises that can be enjoyed in time; even by just a cursory reading of Hebrews. Hebrews 4:11's "rest" is possessed in a temporal sense, as Brother Garrett admits hypothetically, but argues against in his article. He already concedes the principle of the point, though, he just doesn't want to concede it in this passage.
I want to begin by examining Hebrews 11:13, 39, and 40:
"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth (vs. 13)."
"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect (vs. 39,40)."
Obviously from these texts, O.T. saints did not, in a temporal sense, obtain the promises of God in the same way that N.T. believers can obtain and enjoy them. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the author of Hebrews fully equates obtaining the promises of God in time with obtaining them in eternity, as O.T. saints obviously did not obtain these promises equally with N.T. believers.
To argue as Brother Garrett does in Hebrews 4:3-11 against any temporal sense of obtaining the promises of God, contradicts what is obvious from these texts: that the promises of God are obtained and are applicable in their obtainment in time.
Now, this does not exclude the association of a temporal apprehension of these promises with the full obtainment of these promises in an eternal obtainment of them in Jesus Christ, but fully associates them. There is no basis to affirm eternal inheritance apart from laying hold on eternal inheritance in time.
Now, coming to Hebrews 4:3-11, Brother Garrett stated:
"It is based upon these words that credibility is given for seeing conversion as how Christians first enter into God's rest. Though this is not denied to be taught in Scripture, it does not seem to be what Paul is affirming in these words. For the words "do enter," A. T. Robertson says, is from the Greek word eiserxometa and is "emphatic futuristic present middle indicative of eiserxomai." In other words, "We are sure to enter in, we who believe." Thus, though the KJV seems to point to what is a present reality in translating as "do enter," the Greek shows that Paul is still looking to the future for fulfillment. All he is affirming is that true believers are the ones who will enter.
Since saved people have "ceased from" their own works for salvation, and have trusted in Christ alone for salvation, Paul's words in verses 9-11 are interpreted to be a reference to conversion and to a present entering into God's rest. But, if we are honest, we must confess that this is not likely the meaning of the Apostle."
First, Brother Garrett's analysis and use of A.T. Robertson is faulty. The words "do enter" in Hebrews 4:3 are only future in the latter use of 'eiserchomai'. The text contrasts the fact of present entering by those who believe in Eiserchometha, which is in the present tense, passive voice, and indicative mood, with eiseleusontai, which is in the future tense, middle voice, and indicative mood.
The text plainly asserts that those who believe have already entered into the rest of God, which destroys the idea that entering into the rest is excluded from a present, temporal reality. Brother Garrett is wresting this text in the Greek to apply the rest of God solely to eternal rest.
Next, Brother Garrett speaks of "being honest" with Paul's words in Hebrews 4:9-11, indeed let us be honest. From verse 3, it is clear that Paul states the fact that those that believe have already entered into the rest of God. Verse 9-11 plainly indicate that individuals that are truly the people of God, have a rest they need to press into. Surely, if they do not, it could mean that they are the "people of God" in name only, but it also could mean they have yet to enjoy the fullness of their eternal inheritance in time.
Brother Garrett stated:
"First, the works that God ceased from doing were good works, whereas the works that are ceased from, if the above interpretation is accepted, are sinful works. If we cease from our works "as God did from his," then we will be resting from honest toil, not from evil works.
Second, it does not make sense to interpret "he that is entered into his rest" and "ceased from his own works" as a reference to what has already been experienced and yet interpret "let us be diligent to enter into that rest" as also what has already been experienced. Why exhort to future entrance if it has already been entered?"
The sense in which the regenerate are exhorted to "cease from their labors" is not in the sense of the wickedness inherent to those deeds, though such deeds are at best commingled with evil, but from striving to establish their righteousness by works when this righteousness is established in Christ. God resting is not analogous to the rest in Christ that men are exhorted to rest in, except in the sense that God rested at all. Paul's point is that it is not untoward for man, therefore, to base his works on the finished work of Christ, resting as a point of basis on that which was, "finished from the foundation of the world (Hebrews 4:3)."
The second point of Brother Garrett only fails to make sense to him because he is wanting to disallow entering the rest in a temporal sense with having entered eternal rest in Christ. There could be a degree to which one has entered into the rest temporally, but still not be enjoying the full degree of gospel rest; hence, the exhortation. Verse 10 need not imply a contradiction with verse 11, not all to whom Paul writes are truly resting in Christ like they ought to be. Verse 10 refers to the ideal to be obtained, and verse 11 the exhortation to the ideal. The fact is, verse 10, like verse 3, establishes that some have already entered in a temporal sense into the rest with which Paul is contextually dealing.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Finally, the entire context of Hebrews 3 & 4 shows that a future and final deliverance is in view."
I agree that the entire context is of eternal inheritance in Christ, but this need not imply that what occurs in time is not associated with eternal inheritance. This inheritance is temporally enjoyed by those who labor to enter into it, and if one temporally fails to enter into the rest of God, they manifest that they were never partakers of Christ (Hebrews 3:14). A true possession of eternal inheritance is by those who are preserved by God in some degree of temporal faith, trusting in the sufficiency of God to save.
The fact that some believers died in the wilderness, as Moses, Miriam, and Aaron, not enjoying the full degree of the promised rest of God, does not prove that they were faithless like the majority of that generation that fell in the wilderness. I agree with Brother Garrett here. But it still proves that their disobedience prevented them from entering into the promised rest. They certainly should not be fully categorized with that faithless generation, but they are categorized among them in the sense that they did not enjoy in time the same degree of fullness of the rest of God as those that entered into that rest, like Joshua.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)