Jason Brown has responded to my analysis of II Timothy 2. See here
http://primitivebaptistapologist.blogspot.com/
He wrote:
"Garrett is unclear of some of my arguments, as I did not argue that Paul asserts the certain existence of children of God who reject gospel faith permanently. I shall also call Garrett to honesty in this posting. How can we have honest, meaningful discussion when Brother Garrett depicts Gill's commentary of 2 Timothy 2:13 in a one-sided light?
If I am at times unclear about what Jason argues, it is because his arguments at times are not well constructed or stated.
It is good that Jason avers that the children of God cannot reject gospel faith permanently. If we can get the Hardshells to follow Jason in this, a step back to the old Baptist faith will have been made.
I never depicted Gill's commentary on 2 Tim. 2: 13 as "one-sided." That is not correct for I cited enough of the passage where Gill gave the alternate interpretation of the passage. But, I believe the passage refers to unsaved people, and that the statement about God being "faithful" is, as Gill allowed, meant "faithful to his threatenings." Yet, Gill did say that it may have reference to children of God who "believe not," or who lack sufficient faith, and I agree that God's people often lack sufficient faith, or are guilty of some measure of unbelief, and must say "I believe, help my unbelief." That is not the issue. It is a straw man. I don't believe that this verse teaches this, not that it is not taught elsewhere.
I gave good reasons for going with the first interpretation given by Gill, reasons that Jason failed to respond to. Further, in the citation, Gill denied that any who reject Christ would be saved. Jason ignored that part of the citation! Why? Because it shows he is no old Baptist and disagrees with Dr. Gill.
It is a teaching of scripture, that if believers, like Peter, deny Christ in a moment of weakness, that Christ will nevertheless not deny them. It is true that "if we believe not, yet" he will abide "faithful" to his covenant promise, or "if we are not faithful to him, yet he is faithful to us." But, I do not believe that this is what Paul is saying in II Tim. 2: 13. I gave good reasons for my view, one that better fits the context and syntax of the passage.
"Meaningful discussion"? How can we have a meaningful discussion if Jason keeps failing to respond to much of my argumentation and to answer many of my questions? I am "one-sided" in my manner of citing our old Baptist fathers? That is ironic seeing how the Hardshell writers have historically been grossly one-sided in their citations of Gill and of the other old Baptists.
Jason wrote:
"It would have been honest and frank of Brother Garrett to admit that Gill plainly claims that 2 Timothy 2:13 may be interpreted as I have suggested that God is faithful toward His covenant of salvation of the elect in His son. This is blatantly stated in Book 2, chapter 5, section 2 of Gill's Body of Doctrinal Divinity in regard to the Eternal Justification of the elect in Christ."
Was Garrett not frank and honest in giving the full citation of Gill? Did I ever deny that he offered two possible interpretations of the passage? Further, I argued that "if we deny him" and "if we believe not him," were not descriptions of saved people. Only a Hardshell would take these two descriptions and try to apply them to born again people!
Jason wrote:
"Garrett completely ignored (false - SG) here in Gill the interpretation congenial to mine - the only one used by Gill to explain the latter phrase, "He cannot deny himself"."
But, Gill did not exclude "he cannot deny himself" to mean also that God would not deny himself in the condemning of the wicked! He already allowed that "he abides faithful" may mean "abide faithful to his promise of threats of judgment" to all such who deny and reject Christ, and so "he cannot deny himself" may mean "he cannot deny himself" in failing to enjoy revenge upon the deniers and unbelievers.
Jason wrote;
"The faith of God's people does fail, as to the exercise of it, as is so stated by Gill here, but as made perfectly clear in Gill's doctrine of eternal justification, this lack of faith is not a 'causa sine qua non'."
True, and the case of Peter proves that faith may fail on occasion, but not that it could or does fail generally or finally. "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not," said Jesus to Peter. But, Gill taught what is plain in scripture, relative to Peter's case, that all those believers who deny Christ, in weakness, will nevertheless be recovered, converted from such unbelief. Most Hardshells do not believe in perseverance and that Peter's case of restoration is a pattern for all true believers. But, the main question keeps getting brushed aside! Does the bible, or Dr. Gill, teach that one can be an unbeliever and yet saved? Where has Jason ever proven this? Where has he shown that such a doctrine is taught in II Timothy 2? Further, Gill affirmed that faith was not necessary for the salvation of those who die in infancy. I disagree with him on this, although elsewhere in Gill's writings he did affirm that infants could possess faith and knowledge.
He wrote:
"This is to be understood of outward hearing of the word, and of adult persons only; for that, infants may have the grace of regeneration, and so faith wrought in them by the Spirit of God, without hearing the word, is not to be denied; since as they are capable of the principles of corruption, why not of grace? and also of such persons as have the right and free exercise of the faculties of hearing and speaking, and not of such who never could hear, and speak; for as the Spirit works where, and how he pleases, so he can work faith in the hearts of such persons who never heard the word, and enable them to exercise it on the proper object, and cause them secretly to call upon the name of the Lord, with groans which cannot be uttered. 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, yet his usual way and method is, to bring men to faith and repentance by the hearing of the word..." (Commentary on Rom. 10: 14)
Notice that Gill, even in the regeneration of infants, does not exclude faith in Christ and repentance! Agreed, he believes they hear the gospel, but not from human agents. I can accept that view. It is the view of the London Confession. But, the point is, that in either case, the old Baptists did not say that one could be regenerated without faith and repentance being present. He also even has the infant calling upon the name of the Lord!
So, though Gill might say faith, in the normal sense, is not the basis of, or what is necessary for, eternal justification, yet he would not accept the idea that regeneration could exist apart from faith and repentance.
Jason wrote:
"How can Garrett simply ignore this section of the above quoted commentary..."
I did not "simply ignore" it! Jason is the one who is doing the large amount of ignoring.
Jason wrote:
"As for Garrett's remarks concerning, "If we deny him, he also will deny us," in verse 12, I understood and used this phrase to reference false professors in Jesus Christ who were unregenerate."
So, Jason says that the class denoted by "if we believe not" are saved people but the class denoted by "if we deny him" are lost people? How is that consistent? Ridiculous! Also, since Jason admits that the class who are described as being those who "deny" Christ are lost, then why is he defending Hardshellism? If he believes this, then he is no Hardshell on this subject! Since many Hardshells teach that many who deny and reject Christ will be saved, then it cannot be said that those who deny Christ are unregenerate, as does Jason and the scriptures.
Jason wrote:
"I certainly do not believe that it was ever Paul's view that it was characteristic of those truly born again to fall away from the revealed gospel. And I believe that Paul suggests by 2:25,26 that those who were truly regenerate will be restored to the acknowledgement of the truth. If they were not, it would manifest that their first profession was vain."
Wonderful! But, this is not neo-Hardshell teaching! Most do not believe that it is characteristic of the born again to believe the gospel and remain faithful to it, as Jason is now professing to believe. I predict he will have trouble with his Hardshell brethren over this, but I at least hope he converts them to his views, for they are much closer to truth and the old Baptist faith than of his neo-Hardshell brethren.
But, I see in the way Jason has worded things, that he still allows that there are some regenerated souls who will not believe the gospel and will not remain faithful to it. He says that faith and perseverance are "characteristic of those born of God," meaning generally characteristic of them, but not universally characteristic of them. Am I right, brother Jason? Do the scriptures say that only some of those who reject Christ will be lost, or all of them? Have I not shown how the scriptures say that they will "all" be damned?
About being given "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" Jason interprets this as an act of recovery, in God's causing perseverance, of those already regenerated. That this is true, I do not deny. I believe that God gives repentance in perseverance just as he does initially in regeneration. I believe in both cases that it is efficacious and certain. I believe in "irresistible grace" in both regeneration and perseverance. Jason seems to also believe this. But, most of his Hardshell brethren today would not accept the idea that God's recovery of straying sheep, as in the case of Peter, is as irresistible and certain as is the experience of regeneration.
All of the old Baptists, even of the Hardshell founding fathers, cited II Tim. 2: 25, 26 as denoting what happens in regeneration, and did not restrict it to post regeneration restoration.
Also, how does this passage, and Jason's view of it, square with his idea that obedience cannot be the result of irresistible grace?
Jason wrote:
"However, the point is, that it is manifestly possible that those with an "overthrown faith" were deceived into believing "another gospel" for a time."
Why does Jason think that I deny the possibility of saints straying? Of temporarily denying and distrusting Christ? But, I do deny, as did Dr. Gill, that true faith can be overthrown, and therefore the ones referred to, in the passage, were not truly born again. The Greek word for "overthrow" denotes turning upside down in destruction. The faith that God gives cannot be destroyed.
I deny that the scriptures teach that truly saved people can believe "another gospel." Paul taught, in Galatians, how embracing another (different) gospel gave evidence of lost condition.
Jason wrote:
"The mere possibility of this reality (however short a duration of deception) is enough to prove it is erroneous to make intellectual apprehension of the doctrine and knowledge of the gospel synonymous with Biblical faith."
Another non-sequiter. Yes, "short duration of deception" on some points of Christian doctrine may be the experience of true believers, but they cannot be deceived about Christ being Lord and Savior. Jesus taught that the elect could not be deceived in those things that are fundamental to saving faith. (Matt. 24: 24) Further, salvation is not based upon having perfect faith and understanding! To argue against such a position is to argue with a straw man.
Jason wrote:
"Garrett argues that the "faith" that is overthrown in 2 Timothy 2:18 cannot be proved to be the believer's subjective faith but the body of doctrine that constitutes the true gospel. That's interesting, but not cogent. Are the words synonymous in the passage? Hardly. Aletheia versus pistis."
It is cogent as I showed. In the same verse he mentions "the truth" and "the faith," and it is obvious that he is talking about the same thing. But, this does not mean that a definition of "the faith" as being subjective faith overthrows any of the things I believe and have maintained. "The faith," if it denotes the "religion" or "religious belief" (objective faith), simply says that the religious views of some are destroyed. "The faith," if it denotes subjective faith, however, simply says that the religious convictions of some are destroyed.
Jason wrote:
"Now, he should know as I know in debating many Primitive Baptists who exegete the faith of Romans 3 and 4 as God's faith in Christ, that pistis is interchangeably rendered faith and belief in the New Testament in contexts of subjective belief."
Good for Jason! Why, Jason, do you think your Hardshell brethren want to try to make the "faith" of those passages to be something other than the cognitive faith that comes by the gospel? Do any of those new testament passages that speak of the necessity of "faith" for salvation refer to subjective belief? Since you affirm that the "faith" of Romans 3 and 4 is subjective gospel faith, what is its end and purpose in those chapters? What is its utility? Is the righteousness, justification, propitiation, and salvation, in those chapters, time or eternal?
Jason wrote:
"Jude 3's "faith" is pistis also, and like he says, it could be rendered aletheia there, as it is designated with the definite article 'ho'. 2 Timothy 2:18's pistis is modified by the prepositional phrase 'of some', which proves that it cannot be the system of truth of the gospel, as it would only be so to the "some" under consideration, which would be absurd and backward of the objective reality/truth of the gospel. The pistis of this passage is manifestly subjective belief by use of the prepositional phrase 'of some'."
Technically, I never said that "pistis" could be translated as "truth." I said that "the faith" and "the truth," often refer to the same thing, or to the gospel, which is a different thing.
It is a senseless argument to say that "of some" cannot be used with "the faith" in such a case that "the faith" denotes "the Christian system." I can say "the religious system of some" or "the faith convictions of some," but "of some" is used in both sentences in a valid manner. But, it really doesn't matter as to the point in dispute, whether "the faith" refers to the object of faith or to the subjective nature of faith. In either case, Jason has not proven that any born again child of God can have his faith destroyed, or that anyone can be finally saved who was not a gospel believer.
Jason wrote:
"Next, I want to observe that Garrett's line of argument here is not only completely specious, as can already be noted above by his missing the obvious modification of 'faith/pistis' in 2:18 by the definite, therefore, subjective group 'some', but it also undermines his own position."
I have answered this. But, I do not see the argument he is trying to make by saying that the mention of "some," in the passage, "undermines" my position. He will have to be more clear for me to respond to it.
Jason wrote:
"Let's assume for a moment Garrett's erroneous contention that pistis and aletheia were synonymous in this text, what does Garrett suppose is the object of their profession, once the body of truth of the "faith" has been overthrown? Garrett has walked right into my very point! Once a person concedes that intellectually, the truth of the gospel can be overthrown, what possible cognitive and rational basis can there be for one's personal faith? By making this distinction in the text, Garrett undermines the consistency of his own view that personal faith has as it's object the propositional truth of the gospel."
Is Jason saying that there is a sense in which Christian faith may be overthrown and destroyed "intellectually" but that it cannot be overthrown in a non-intellectual sense? What does it mean to have non-intellectual faith? Where is such a faith described in scripture? Jason says that faith, in scripture, is neither "cognitive" nor "rational"! Again, where is his biblical authority for such a definition? Jason denies that "personal faith" has "as it's object," the "propositional truth of the gospel"! Gill did not take this view!
Jason wrote:
"When 2 Timothy 2:18,19 refers to the faith of some being overthrown, it is not Hymenaeus and Philetus that are the direct reference - they're the ones doing the 'overthrowing'! They're the ones teaching Gnosticism. They are the false ministers in the church of God that are vessels of dishonor."
Doesn't matter! Both the teachers and those who accepted their teachings, were gnostic heretics, were they not? Did they not share the Gnostic faith? Further, it is likely that Hymenaeus and Philetus had been Christians at one time, for how else could they have had such influence with Christians in overthrowing their faith? So, they were all destroyed in their previous convictions.
So, the teachers of Gnosticism are lost vessels of dishonor, but those who follow them are not? How does that make sense?
Jason wrote:
"The whole context of this chapter is a context of Paul's pastoral exhortations to Timothy. It doesn't appear like Garrett is keeping this in mind."
I have shown how Paul taught that part of Timothy's pastoral duties was to witness to the lost! Jason needs to keep that in mind!
Jason wrote:
"The text of verse 21 defines in the context what Paul means by a vessel of honor; it is a minister set apart by God to endure all things for the elect's sake (vs. 10). The context of purging oneself is addressed to Timothy as an exhortation from Paul not to listen or be affected by the false teachers, just as Paul just commanded Timothy in verse 15 to study to show himself approved unto God, and in verse 16 to shun profane and vain babblings (which prompted this anti-Gnosticism rant from Paul), and right after verse 21 Paul tells Timothy in verse 22 to flee youthful lusts. Paul is in a dialogue with Timothy about being a pastor."
Why does Jason want to limit Paul's instructions to just ministers? Are they the only ones who should study to show themselves approved of God? Are ministers the only ones to avoid false doctrine and avoid youthful lusts?
Paul is talking about what vessels are "in a great house," referring by allusion to the church of God. Are there only ministers in this great house? Dr. Gill says that these "vessels" in God's "great house" are "persons who are members of the visible church." But, Jason wants to limit it to ministers only, and not to all the members! Gill said that the "gold" and "silver" members were truly saved people, and the "wood" and "earth" vessels were members who were not truly saved. Gill identifies the honorable vessels with the truly elect and called members, but the dishonorable vessels he identifies with the lost.
Yes, Paul is in a dialogue about being a faithful pastor, but he includes information about being a faithful Christian.
Jason wrote:
"Isn't it manifest that for God to give someone repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, means they acknowledged it before?"
No, it is not "manifest," not even obvious! How did Jason arrive at that conclusion? It would mean that if Paul had said "re-acknowledge," but he did not say that.
Jason wrote:
"...gospel knowledge should not be confused with trust in God. The possibility is easily established in 2:13, which even Gill allowed as shown above, and in 2:25 by Paul saying that peradventure God will give them repentance to the state of acknowledging the truth they once had."
Is there no gospel knowledge in one's "trust in God"? How can one trust one he does not know? Where did Jason show that "Gill allowed" Jason's definition of a non-cognitive faith?
No comments:
Post a Comment