Jason Brown's latest posting was in reply to my posting titled "Jason's Omissions." Ironically, he is still omitting responding to my arguments! And, what does he do? He basically says - "respond to the new things I bring up." But, should not a person respond to all the arguments of the affirmative before bringing up new arguments? It is very telling how Jason continues to fail to respond to Gill's words about a person not being more regenerated than another, etc. His refusal to acknowledge the words of Gill destroy his misrepresentation of Gill and he does not know what to do except to ignore those words! Jason said:
"Garrett spoke to my "omissions", but failed to realize that where he was most critical is where I am critical in regard to some modern PB's. Speaking of omissions, notice that Garrett wouldn't touch Matt. 23, Luke 11:52, or 2 Timothy 2 in response to my last post. When it comes to "thus sayeth the Lord", he seems to retreat."
First, it is not true that I did not engage Brown on Matt. 23 and Luke 11: 52. I overthrew his interpretation of those passages and I am content with it and see no need to respond to his rehashing. Concerning his comments in II Tim. 2, I see no need to respond. I certainly do disagree with his interpretation of that passage. But, I have better things to do than to correct Jason on everything. I also don't intend to drag out our discussion by my agreeing to review all that he writes in his blog. After all, I did not start my blog with the purpose of negating all that he writes. He did that.
My "retreating"? I will let the readers decide that for themselves. Perhaps he is misinterpreting my victory walk away from battle?
"My blog is addressed to Garrett's excessive criticisms of the Primitive Baptists. I did not address some of his writing as to whether present PB's are historical in regard to teaching on conversion because I agree with Garrett here that some present PB's are in error. I stated this multiple times in past posts."
But, Jason never showed how my criticisms of the Hardshells were "excessive"! In fact, he even agreed early on that many of my criticisms of the Hardshells are valid! Even in the above citation Jason admits that "some present PB's are in error." Jason thinks I am exaggerating, but is Jason not rather minimalizing and trivializing? Is he not downplaying the seriousness of PB errors? Of course, Jason would have been more correct to say "nearly all" instead of "some." Nearly all Hardshells reject what their own forefathers taught about the necessity of conversion by the gospel! That such a conversion was the new birth and was a work that was effectual and irresistible! That the "obedience" brought about by the Spirit and the word in conversion was passive and certainly active.
Besides, why does Jason not tell us what faction he is identified with? I have repeatedly asked him to tell us about himself. Is Jason Brown his real name?
"All historic PB's believed that under the sound of the gospel as preached by man, the regenerate would be converted, as it is the nature of the regenerate to embrace the revelation available."
Is that what today's Hardshells believe Jason? That all the elect who hear the gospel will be converted by it? Since the "historic" teaching of the first Hardshells affirmed that all the elect, when they hear the gospel, will believe it, and seeing how nearly all of today's Hardshells reject that proposition, how are they then "primitive"? Thanks for your help Jason! You have affirmed that most of today's Hardshells are not primitive!
"Where Garrett and I disagree is in reference to the nature of this conversion. He argues that God's irresistible grace is at work, and I argue that conversion and belief in the gospel is a cooperative work of the Holy Spirit and the regenerated will of man much like progressive sanctification (which he also argues is by irresistible grace)."
And, what have I shown was the belief of Jason's Hardshell forefathers? Did they not believe that gospel conversion, or the new birth, was irresistible? That the verse "thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" was universally applied to God's people being converted or born again? Did not the Hardshell forefathers all believe in passive obedience? How can Jason claim to be "primitive" in these things?
"So what is the point? The point is that Garrett's view of Baptist history is guilty of a zealous overstatement."
Of course, that is a falsehood. But, interestingly, where has Jason produced the historical proof that I asked for? Where is his proof that Hardshells existed prior to the 19th century? Jason may falsely accuse my historical evidence as "zealous overstatement," but his is a gross understatement! Why? Because he affirms the existence of Hardshells prior to the 19th century and yet cannot point to any Baptist group who held their distinctive beliefs!
"He is not in error in regard to some of the errors of modern PB's, but he is so eager to oppose that he is willing to twist and pervert Gill from his own published views if it seems to make modern PB's seem more ridiculous. It seems his spirit is wrong even if he has some truth."
But, all this is not worth responding to because it is said without foundation, and is ad hominem. Garrett did not pervert Gill. Did Daily not pervert Gill? Did not Jason agree?
"Dear reader beware! You now have indication to view his writings with a healthy dose of skepticism, and I behoove all to put his statements to the test before believing every word."
Yes, readers, beware! Beward of the Hardshell cult and its heretical teachings! Beware of that cult that avows that many unbelievers will be saved!