"Garrett's Error"

Jason Brown, Hardshell apologist, under a posting titled "Garrett's Error" wrote the following:

"Steven Garrett has allowed his passion to overrule reason in regard to his opposition to the Primitive Baptists. I have stated in my first post that Garrett believes that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration was contrived by them in the context of the anti-mission split among the Baptists in 1832."

First, my name is spelled StePHen, not SteVen. Jason says that I "overrule reason." Again, Jason shows that his cult's heresy regarding regeneration, or their soteriological errors, are the result of reason and logic, for why else would he condemn my proofs and argumentation as being against "reason"? Jason and the Hardshells need to quit "leaning upon their own understanding" (upon their own reasonings) and accept humbly the plain declarations of scripture! Paul said that true gospel ministers and apologists "cast down reasonings" (II Cor. 10: 5). The apostle Paul, if he were here, would be casting down Hardshell "reasonings" just as I. Regarding the other things he said, it is repitition and I have previously rebutted his comments about the novelty of PB teaching.

Jason cites from the work of my dear friend and associate, Brother Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, from his work "History and Heresies of Hardshellism," where Bob wrote this:

"This theory gives precedence of power to the spoken words of Christ, which He supposedly speaks directly to the individual. Notice that the "speaking," according to Beebe, PRECEDES the "hearing" and the "life." This would mean that Christ speaks to the "dead alien sinner" BEFORE the sinner is "alive." Therefore, the Word of Christ is addressed to the "dead," yet the Hardshells object to the Baptist position that the Gospel, or Word, is to be preached to the "dead," and is accompanied by the Holy Spirit in pursuance of God's sovereign purpose in effectual calling." (History and Heresies of Hardshell Baptists, chapter 6)"

Jason then gives the web page where Bob's writings against Hardshellism can be read. At this location:

http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

What is odd, however, is how Jason says:

"Brother Ross responded well to this "hybrid" and "novel" idea."

I am at a loss to understand how Jason could endorse Bob's words and yet argue for Hardshellism! Was this an honest admission or a kind of slur and sarcasm?

Jason wrote:

"The idea that immediate regeneration was a "novel" doctrine is historical fiction. Again, Garrett seems to confuse opposition to the doctrine of immediate regeneration with opposition to a separaton of immediate regeneration from the gospel as preached by men. Garrett's true objection seems to be the latter. It is a historical fact that many Puritan Divines believed that the actual act of regeneration was not mediated through the preached word, e.g. Samuel Hopkins. Many modern Reformed Theologians take this view as well, like R.C. Sproul. The idea that this doctrine originated in 1832 is preposterous. What Garrett must mean is that the total separation of the preached gospel from the immediate act of regeneration was/is a Primitive Baptist contrivance."

Hardshell views on regeneration are novel and new, at least among Baptists. It has never been denied, by Bob Ross or myself, that some of the Presbyterians were the first to omit means in regeneration, at least in the case of infants. But, if Jason wants to know about how the first Baptists of the London confession responded to this kind of regeneration, he should read Spilsbury's debate with the Presbyterian Bakewell, on the matter! Jason would find himself in line with Bakewell rather than with Spilsbury, and yet they claim to be the "original" Baptists!

What Jason also fails to admit is this, that the Presbyterians who promoted this view, Hopkins, Shedd, and Hodge, all believed that conversion would automatically follow or attend regeneration, at least in the case of adults. Will Jason agree with them on this?

Has Jason given us historical evidence to prove that Baptists in the 18th century, believed Hardshell views?

Jason wrote:

"...by Garrett's admission in various blogs John Gill is inconsistent in portraying the preached gospel as a means of the Spirit in regeneration."

I never said Gill was "inconsistent"! Let Jason show us the statement where I said this! I have shown that it is the Hardshells who have accused Gill of being inconsistent, repeating the argument of John Daily (Daily-Throgmorton Debate) where Daily argued that Gill taught means in regeneration in his Commentaries, but had changed his mind, in his older days, and wrote a different view in his Body of Divinity and in his book The Cause of God and Truth. In my book, in the series of chapters titled "Gill and the Hardshells," I show that Gill is consistent and that the Hardshells have twisted the words of Gill, as they did the words of the London Confession in Fulton (1900), and as they do the scriptures. Also, did not the Philadelphia Association, in its early history, not recommend to all the ministry the commentaries of Gill?

Jason wrote:

"Obviously, for Gill to hedge on this issue speaks to an ongoing climate within Christendom way before Beebe that was to some degree uncertain about gospel instrumentality in regeneration."

But, the argument Jason gives is not valid because his first premise is false. John Gill did not "hedge" on the issue, was not inconsistent, and it is a lie told by Jason and the Hardshells, when they ought to know better. Therefore, Jason's conclusion (thesis), that there was a degree of uncertainly about the gospel being a means in regeneration, among the Baptist family, before the 19th century, is false. Where is the proof of this? That John Gill held Hardshell views? Where is the proof? I have shown in my writings where Gill never changed his mind on this "issue."

Jason wrote:

"The idea that Baptist Theologians and Puritan Divines before Beebe were all consistently on the same page about gospel instrumentality in regeneration oversteps what can be rationally established; indeed, to make such a generalization of history attests to an irrational fervor that marks a personal vendetta."

Again, all this is funny, because all Jason and the Hardshells need to do is to cite Baptist records, prior to the 19th century, where the Baptists believed hardshellism! All he does is make statements about history without any shred of evidence to prove his statements. Does not their universal acceptance of the Philadelphia confessions show that the Baptists were united in the view that sinners are born again by the gospel? Notice again how Jason speaks of what is "rational" and "irrational." Reason/logic is his determining factor in what he believes!

I can generalize (induce) from the writings of the 17th and 18th century that the Particular Baptists universally believed that the gospel was the means God used to beget his people. How can Jason induce hardshellism from the historical records when there are no records of hardshellism being the faith of Baptists prior to the 19th century rise of the Hardshells?

Jason resorts to a typical Hardshell approach to my writings by speaking of some "personal vendetta" that I am judged to have. Jason can't meet the arguments and proofs so he makes ad hominem attacks, and seeks to "poison the well." How can Jason excuse his own self in the matter of "personal vendetta"? Is his response to my writings not a "personal vendetta"? How can he judge my writings as such but not his own?

Jason wrote:

"The unscriptural application of the doctrine of immediate regeneration among many modern Primitive Baptists is when they make gospel rejection the norm for regenerate children of God. This rejection of the gospel certainly does not follow logically from the simple idea that regeneration precedes gospel faith. An underlying universalism or quasi-universalism is truly to be blamed. Indeed, the Scripture provides ample proof that the preaching of the cross is the power of God to them that are saved (1 Cor. 1:18). It is the nature of those that are regenerate to embrace in faith the revelation available to them. Gospel rejection is a fruit of the eternally damned (Mark 16:16, 2 Thes. 1:7-9)."

This statement is repitition from a previous posting and I have already, in my previous rebuttal to that posting, dealt with these things. Jason is arguing that some (albeit not all, nor the majority), of those who are "regenerated" will accept Christ and believe his gospel. And what of those "regenerated" ones who reject the gospel? Will they be saved? What does Paul say about all those who do not believe the gospel in II Thess. 1: 8, 9? Jason affirms that a man can be "regenerated" and yet be a gospel and Christ rejecter? He can be antichrist and still be "regenerated"!

Jason writes in conclusion, saying:

"So it is vain to oppose the ridiculous conclusions of some modern Primitive Baptists by an attack on the doctrine of immediate regeneration, as the real culprit is an underlying universalism."

Again, I am glad to have this admission by Jason. Some of today's Hardshells have "ridiculous conclusions." I believe Jason still holds to some of those "ridiculous conclusions" and needs to rid himself of them and accept what the scriptures and our historic confessions teach. Further, "the real culprit" is Hardshell denial of means in regeneration, of divorcing conversion from regeneration. The "real culprit" is this reliance of the Hardshells upon their reason and logic rather than upon scripture.