Jason on Conversion

In a blog posting titled "Gospel Conversion" our Hardshell apologist, Jason Brown, wrote: See here

"As has been previously noted, Stephen Garrett believes that James 1:18 proves that regeneration is effected by the gospel.

One of the difficulties in taking this view of this text is observed by examining James 1:21, "...receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." This text puts the acceptation of the word on a volitional level. If the gospel is God's instrument to effect regeneration in verse 18, by verse 21 it would seem to be the case that, since one could refuse to receive the engrafted word (this possibility is established in that James commands his audience to receive the word), they could oppose God's work of regeneration."

Jason speaks of "difficulties" in taking James' words at face value, as affirming that sinners are born again by the word of truth, or word of the gospel. But the difficulties are of his own making, because he cannot harmonize James' words with his preconceived ideas. Gill and our Baptist forefathers did not see these "difficulties" that Jason and the Hardshells see.

Jason's "difficulty" lies in his not being able to place any "volition" in the work of regeneration. In receiving gospel truth he sees cognition, faith, and volition, but he cannot accept any volition, revelation, or faith in the experience of regeneration. But, that is his problem, not a problem with the bible writers. Also, traditionally, Hardshells have interpreted the statement - "thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" as alluding to what happens in regeneration. So, it seems as though they allow, at times, for volition to be an aspect of regeneration. They also show inconsistency in this area because they will often interpret verses dealing with Jesus being "revealed" to a person as talking about regeneration or an efficacious calling. Let us ask Jason - "do you interpret all passages dealing with revelation of Christ to a sinner as unconnected with regeneration?"

Jason is inconsistent here, for his Hardshell brothers have traditionally interpreted Phil. 2: 13 - "it is God who works in you to will (choose)" - as denoting a sovereign work of God whereby sinners are regenerated. Is regeneration not a "receiving" of Christ and the Spirit? If one can "receive" Christ and the Spirit irresistibly, by sovereign grace and power, why can they not also "receive" the gospel in the same manner? Is conversion not the work of God as is regeneration? Jason said - "since one could refuse to receive the engrafted word." Yes, one not only "could," but actually do refuse to receive the engrafted word and are not saved because of it. But, the elect are worked upon with infinite power and this ensures their acceptance of the word. It is as Paul wrote when he said:

"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 4, 5)

Gill and the true Old Baptists interpreted this verse as denoting regeneration and the manner in which it is affected. But, let us suppose it only deals with an optional conversion experience, to a "time salvation," do the above words not make use of language that denotes an "effectual calling" nonetheless?

Also, consider Ephesians 1: 19, 20:

"...And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places..."

This verse has typically been used by Calvinists, including Hardshells, to denote that regeneration was effectual and irresistible. But, how does Paul describe this efficacious work? Does he not call regeneration the work of being made a "believer"? How is one made a believer? Is it not through the gospel preached, as Paul affirmed in Romans 10? But, it is not the sovereign work of God, in regeneration, to deliver a man from being a believer in "gods many and lords many"!

Jason wrote:

"Therefore, the context of verse 18 must also entail a volitional context of gospel conversion. The effectual call of the will of God of verse 18 must be divisible from the word of truth, which was also present (but not instrumental) in the regeneration of the early Jewish disciples. They were then converted by the word after they were called from spiritual death."

Yes, we agree, that a "volitional" act is involved in the receiving of the truth and being saved by it, but we deny that this salvation is not a salvation from sin, or is not a being "born again." Again, what do the scriptures say of those who do not believe in Jesus? Let me give a sampling.

1. They will be "punished with eternal destruction." (II Thess. 1: 8, 9)
2. They are "under the wrath of God." (John 3: 36)
3. They shall "die in their sins." (John 8: 24)
4, They will be "condemned" in the judgment. (Mark 16: 16)

Jason wrote:

"As I have noted, this harmonizes with what we know of Peter's experience in Luke 22:31,32. Peter's experience of conversion much later than his spiritual birth also proves that we are not at exegetical liberty to impose a strict timetable on gospel conversion as it relates to regeneration. James 1:18 summarizes the work of God in regeneration and gospel conversion, and shows that discipleship is consistent with sonship. It does not show that discipleship must follow sonship immediately or to equal degrees."

Making James 1: 18 (the divine "begetting" through the word) and James 1:21 (the "saving" resulting from "receiving" the word) to be dealing with conversion, or to their "time salvation," an experience that Jason and the Hardshells say happen in the Arminian fashion, by free will power and human effort, is bad hermeneutics. Can he name a Baptist theologian who interpreted James 1: 18 and 21 as dealing with only a temporal salvation? You are not "primitive" or "original" if you interpret these verses as dealing with a salvation that is not eternal.

Jason will not accept the idea that the begetting and the salvation of these verses are talking about salvation in the proper sense of the term, not because there is any ambiguity in the words of the apostle, but because the apostolic teachings do not jive with his false ideas and propositions. Because he has convinced himsef that Hardshell premises are taught in the bible, the bible verses must be "harmonized," by twisting and distorting, the words of James. What are some of those Hardshell false propositions, premises that they have arrived at by their use of human reason, rather than upon plain scriptural statements? Here are a few of them as a sampling (which premises are dealt with at length in my book):

False Logical Promises of the Hardshells

(which they take to the bible rather than obtaining from the bible)

1. If humans are secondary causes, or means, in the work of salvation, then salvation would be insecure, for whatever depends upon creatures is insecure. In other words, salvation is secure and effectual because God uses no human means.

2. If humans are secondary causes, or means, in the work of salvation, then the salvation would not be all the work of God, not all by grace.

3. If salvation involves volition, and believing, then the infant and the idiot cannot be saved.

4. If salvation was only by the gospel, then most people would be going to hell, but the scriptures affirm that most people will be saved, which statement could not be true if people were saved by the gospel.

I have refuted these false propositions in my writings against the Hardshells. Jason, in using these kinds of arguments, needs to read what I have already written about them and address my disproof of them. He needs to show how these propositions are taught in scripture.

Jason wrote:

"It is evident from Scripture and natural observation that God is discrete in regard to who is blessed with gospel knowledge. The angels desire to know of the mysteries contained. Paul was directed to certain places in his missionary work. We observe that there are many that are ignorant with little understanding of the gospel. If eternal salvation hinges on mental awareness of the gospel, how much of a pure gospel is necessary to ensure eternal life?"

It seems clear to me that Jason's problem and "difficulty" is with the word of God, sad to say. The Bible clearly teaches, if it teaches anything, that those who "know not God and obey not the gospel" will be eternally destroyed. Jason can throw all kinds of logical reasonings out against the plain words of scripture, but those words still ring out clearly - "believe and be saved."

Jason asks the standard Hardshell interrogative when he asks - "how much gospel must one believe" to be saved? Does he not know? If I asked him, "how much gospel do you need to know" to be "converted," or saved in a "time salvation" sense, what would he say? But, there are lots of scripture that answers his question, and he ought to know about them.

Jason wrote:

"The Jews had the gospel purposely obscured by God, according to Matt. 13:10-17 and Romans 11:7-11, 25. The Jewish leaders kept the Jewish people from believing the gospel according to Matt. 23:37 and Luke 11:52. How can these texts be exegeted in an eternal context without embracing Arminianism?"

Jason has here gone from the negative (responding to my arguments) to the affirmative, bringing up arguments to prove Hardshellism. Perhaps I should say that I will answer him when he answers my rebuttal of his writing. He ignores much of my rebuttal, the parts he cannot deal with. I have asked him numerous questions in my rebuttal but get no replies. I have made arguments that get no notice. Now he wants me to answer his questions!

The Lord blinded the minds and hardened the hearts of the rebels and unbelievers and believing this leads to Arminianism? How so? Further, God did not "obscure" the "gospel," in the passage, but acted in judgment to seal their state of unbelief. Paul, in Hebrews 4: 2, said - "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." The same gospel preached to us had been preached to those blinded, but their rejection of the gospel kept them from God's rest, God's inheritance, and sealed their doom. Jason would do well to learn what these verses tell us about the necessity of faith in the gospel in order to be finally and eternally saved. Does Jason believe that some of those unbelievers who were blinded and hardened were nevertheless "regenerated" children of God?

Jason then resorts to an argument sometimes made by Hardshells regarding those passages that speak of one man doing something to hinder another man from being saved, and asked me to harmonize it with Calvinism, and show how it does not infer Arminianism. What Jason is saying is that his Hardshell paradigm is able to deal with the "difficulties" of making regeneration a change of the will, thoughts, beliefs, convictions, and emotions. Ironically, he does not see any problem with "conversion" and "time salvation" being a work that others can hinder, but he has problem affirming the same with "regeneration." Therefore, when he reads the above two passages, he brings this preconceived proposition to them, and says that the thing that men were hindered from obtaining is not eternal salvation, or regeneration, but conversion or time salvation. So, when Jesus said (vs. 13) - "for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in," Jason is forced to interpret the verse as talking about loss, not of salvation, but a loss of temporal reward. Jason, because he takes his proposition to the text (that says men cannot hinder other men from being eternally saved), he cannot, therefore, interpret "entering" the "kingdom of heaven" as what is denoting salvation, and the not entering as denoting damnation. Yet, in John 3, when Jesus said "you must be born again to enter the kingdom," Jason will have no problem affirming that this "entering the kingdom" denotes final and complete salvation. Jason needs to throw away his unscriptural proposition and quit allowing it to dictate how he interprets scripture.

Let us look at verse 15.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

Obviously the hindering of people from "entering the kingdom of heaven" is connected with being made a superlative child of Hell! Obviously then, the context is dealing with eternal destinies.

The scriptures teach that, from the human perspective, from the perspective of second causes, we may hinder others from being saved, just as we may help them to be saved. We may be a means in the salvation or damnation of others, a truth that Hardshells do not want to face, for they do not want to feel any responsibility in the matter. It is, to them, all God's responsibility to save people, and they believe that God cannot, will not, use them in the matter. No wonder Boyce Taylor, the great Hardshell killer, said that Hardshells fit the description of the man who buried his talent and gave his Hyper Calvinistic reasons for doing so!

Now, from God's perspective, men do not successfully hinder the elect from finally obtaining salvation, both regeneration and conversion. The passages do not say that the elect are kept from salvation, although they may be hindered for a time, so that they could have been saved earlier than they actually were. Men are hindered from being saved, looking at the matter from the standpoint of means and second causes, or from the human finite perspective.

Greater passages on this question are these:

"Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." (Rom. 15: 15)

"And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (I Cor. 8: 11)

Obviously one can hinder another from being saved. Why rebel against them for the purpose of upholding a false proposition and to remove logical "difficulties"? Now, the word "brother" here does not denote a child of God, but a "neighbor" to whom we should treat as brothers. See my writings on this issue in my series on "The Weak Brothers." Paul plainly says that we can be the means of either ensuring the salvation or damnation of others by our testimony. Will Jason interpret these verses as merely dealing with a temporal salvation and damnation?

If conversion is the work of God, as regeneration, then why are all the elect not converted? Why do you have a problem with men hindering God's work of converting but not his work of regenerating?

Jason wrote:

"A basic trust in the gospel message is the natural reaction of sons, if they are under the sound of it, as the gospel is a savour of life unto life in them that are saved (2 Cor. 2:15,16). However, we are not at Scriptural liberty to suppose definitively the eternal destiny of any individual, though we can say generally that the Bible teaches the damnation of those that do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:7-9), or that Christ has become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him (Hebrews 5:9)."

It is interesting that Jason would refer to II Cor. 2: 15, 16 as those verses destroy Jason's denial that God uses the gospel as the means of giving "life," or of regenerating. The gospel is a "savor (aroma) of life UNTO life." The gospel is for the purpose of giving life!

Jason wants to say that though not all the elect will hear the gospel, most of the ones who do hear it will embrace it. He is close to the truth, but when he allows that even one of the elect will fail to be converted, fail to repent and believe in Christ, he is unscriptural. When he allows for any unbeliever to be eternally saved then he is in serious error, as I have shown from such verses as II Thess. 1: 8,9. Also, Jason does not want to say that all who die in unbelief, and without coming to know the one true God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, will be lost. He, like his brethren, will not agree with the scriptures on the matter, nor on what Gill, the London Confession, and other records of primitive Baptist testimony affirm. Yet, he claims to be "primitive" on the matter of the condition of the "heathen." Again, Jason wants to argue, as did Cayce, that those Athenian idolaters, before Paul preached the gospel to them, were "regenerated," though they remained in heathenism and paganism!

Jason said - "we can say generally that the Bible teaches the damnation of those that do not obey the gospel." Can say it only "generally" and not universally? Which way do the bible writers predominantly state it? Do they say that only some of those who reject Christ and the gospel will be lost, or all of them? Jason affirms that some of those who reject Christ will be saved. Where is that taught in scripture?

In John 10 Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me." How does Jesus relate "hearing" his "voice" (regeneration) and "following" him (discipleship)? Dos he say that only some of those who hear his voice follow him, or that all who hear his voice follow him? What authority does Jason have for teaching otherwise?

Jason wrote:

"It is inconsistent for children of God not to profess Him before a body of believers and submit to Baptism, and for this they ought to wonder if they are truly regenerate. Just like it was inconsistent for the rich, young ruler to not give all that he had to feed the poor, but, at least in that case, Jesus loved him nonetheless, according to Mark."

Yes, it is "inconsistent"! For a man that values logic, this inconsistency must really bother him! We "ought to wonder if they are truly regenerate," testified Jason. Bingo! It is as David Pyles admitted, saying that "we have no right to say anyone is saved who has not believed in Jesus." Do you not agree? But, even though you doubt the regeneration of Christ rejecters, you will not say for sure that all unbelievers will have their place in the lake of fire!

Was the rich young ruler regenerated and saved even though he rejected following Christ? This is what is dangerous about Hardshellism! It tells men that they can be saved even if they reject Christ! Yes, the Lord "loved" him! Jason and the Hardshells think that the fact that Christ loved the Christ rejecter that the Christ rejecter must be one of the elect anyway! But, the truth of the matter is, Christ loves all men. Why would Jason deny this? Why would Jason make Jesus into a sinner by denying that Christ loved all men? Was Christ not under the law? Under obligation to obey the law as a man? Was not the main substance of the law the obligation to "love your neighbor as yourself"? Was Christ not obligated to love all men? Now, of course, this does not deny God's special superlative love for his chosen bride, for his elect. Paul says it like this:

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)

Jesus, in fulfillment of the moral law, loved all men, so the Father is also said to love all men. We may substitute the word "lover" in the place of "saviour" and say that "God is the lover of all men, specially of those that believe (elect)."