In a blog posting titled "Primitive Baptists Contra Stephen Garrett," Hardshell apologist, Jason Brown, announced to the world that he had created a blog simply for the purpose of responding, mostly critically, to my thesis and its proofs. Welcome to the debate brother! I have been wanting a Hardshell apologist to come forward and debate these issues! Praise the Lord. Debating via blogs is okay, maybe even better, in this age, than orally in Lincoln-Douglas style, before a physical audience. In his introductory blog posting, Jason wrote:
"The impetus of this blog was finding the blog of Stephen Garrett in which, among other things, he has tasked himself with revealing to the world that the Primitive Baptist denomination is a cult."
So we have a spokesman for the Hardshells, finally, after trying to get one since the early nineties! I salute Jason for being open to debate publicly what I have written about the "Primitive Baptists." I will be defending my thesis, that the Hardshells are a cult, and not "primitive" or "original" Baptists on leading points of doctrine. I am discussing (debating) Hardshellism now with a PB elder, but he wants to remain incognito in regard to our discussions. So, again, hooray to Jason for being willing to "reveal to the world" that the Hardshells are not a cult, but the "one and only true church of Jesus Christ," the "only ones" who preach a pure gospel, the only ones truly "converted."
Jason wrote:
"I want to state at the outset that many of Stephen Garrett's criticisms of present day Primitive Baptists are not without warrant."
We are glad to have this much admission from our Hardshell "apologist." In his writings, Jason has pointed out some of those areas where today's "Primitive Baptists" are worthy of criticism. We will look at those things as we review Jason's apologetic responses to my writings. The question to be asked is this - are these condemnations of today's Hardshells minor or major, serious, or incidental?
Jason wrote:
"Particularly with reference to the view that many Primitive Baptists hold today that most of the world is in fact comprised of regenerate children of God, which they erroneously affirm from texts of Scripture that state that the family of God is a numerous seed. Such texts are not in a context of a definite contrast to the damned, and, consequently, it simply does not follow that there will be more people in heaven than hell, let alone that most now living are of the redeemed."
Notice that Jason admits that "many" of his brethren believe that "most of the world" are children of God (elect). We are glad that Jason makes this confession, but would ask him these questions: 1) Is this a serious major issue? 2) What Hardshell teachings helped to create this error? 3) Does such an error motivate, or hinder, them to evangelize?
Surely Jason knows that this error (warranted criticism) represents one of the first steps to Hardshell Universalism, and that universalism and no-hellism have plagued the Hardshell denomination.
Jason wrote:
"First, I want to point out that Mr. Garrett claims that the Primitive Baptist doctrine of immediate regeneration is unbiblical. He believes that the regenerating Spirit of God is ordinarily mediated through the preached word. He has claimed that Primitive Baptists contrived this doctrine in the context of the division among the Baptists in 1832."
One thing that should be noticed is how Jason will not call me "brother," but only calls me "mister." Most Hardshells treat me this way. I find this ironic, funny. By Jason's own admission, many Hardshells believe that most people in the world are born again children of God, even those who worship idols, and believe in gods many and lords many, but Stephen Garrett, a professed follower of Christ, is not allowed to be one of those children of God!
Yes, I do claim that the Hardshell version of "immediate regeneration" is not biblical. In my writings against Hardshell "immediate regeneration" I have cited numerous scriptures that clearly teach that God operates through the gospel, that faith in Christ, and repentance from sin and to God, are essential experiences in being regenerated, born again, or converted. There is no need to look at all those scriptures now in this context, but many chapters of my book on the Hardshells demonstrate from scripture that God begets through the word and by faith.
Jason said that I believe "that the regenerating Spirit of God is ordinarily mediated through the preached word." And is this not what is said in the old London Confession? What the real old or primitive Baptists said about the matter? They surely did not believe that all were born again alike, as Hardshells often teach, erroneously, from John 3: 8.
I believe, like the signers of the old London Confession, men like Benjamin Keach, William Kiffin, Handserd Knollys, John Spilsbury, etc., that regeneration and conversion were different aspects of the same experience, that they are concurrent experiences in being regenerated or born again, or "things that accompany salvation," and that regeneration involves cognition, or recognition, of the gospel truth, of God's gospel being written upon the heart, or of faith and repentance.
Jason says: "He has claimed that Primitive Baptists contrived this doctrine in the context of the division among the Baptists in 1832."
Yes, and where is the evidence to the contrary from the PBs, or from the Hardshell apologist? Why doesn't Jason cite the historical records from the 17th or 18th century that show that the old Baptists believed hardshell views on regeneration and the new birth? Jason does later attempt to find some small "evidence" but I will address those efforts as we come to those portions of Jason's writings where he presents his feeble evidence. I have shown all kinds of evidence to show that the Baptists, prior to the rise of the Hardshells, in the 1820-1840 period, were united around what was taught in the London and Philadelphia confessions on the subject of means in salvation. Jason even later admits that these old confessions taught means in regeneration! Yet, he claims to be primitive or original!
Jason wrote:
"Mr. Garrett objects to completely divorcing the operation of the Spirit in regeneration from the outward preached gospel, but note that he does make a distinction. The actual act of regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit of God alone. Logically, then, the act of regeneration is immediate when God recreates the dead, alien sinner, which gives them the spiritual discernment to recognize their need of a saviour. There is nothing unbiblical about insisting that regeneration precedes gospel acceptance and a profession of faith."
I couple together regeneration and conversion because the bible couples them, and even Jason admits this in one of his postings, as I shall show later! I also couple them together as did John Gill, and the writers and endorsers of the London and Philadelphia confessions!
Of course I make a distinction between the words regeneration and conversion, but that does not mean that I divorce them from the singular experience. The question is, however, do the scriptures so distinguish the words so as to divorce them from the same experience? Does Jason and the Hardshells not believe that the words "resurrected" and "quickened" refer to the same experience and yet are two distinct words? Just because two or more words are used to describe the saving work of God, does this mean they are divorced, or separate experiences? Such bad logic! Is regeneration different from being born again (begotten) even though they are distinct words and concepts? Is "calling" a different experience from being "quickened"?
Jason said - "The actual act of regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit of God alone." Well, the Holy Spirit is the lone source of regeneration, but the Spirit uses the means of the gospel. This is what our forefathers taught in their writings and in the confessions, saying regeneration or the new birth was "by his Word and Spirit." They did not teach "Spirit Alone" regeneration. It is interesting how Jason gave us no scripture that says that regeneration is accomplished by the Spirit alone apart from means. In fact, numerous passages say we are begotten by the gospel. (James 1: 18; I Peter 1: 23-25; I Cor. 4: 15)
Jason said - "Logically, then, the act of regeneration is immediate when God recreates the dead, alien sinner, which gives them the spiritual discernment to recognize their need of a saviour."
But, do we get our doctrine by human logic and reasoning or by the express and plain declarations of scripture? This is typical of Hardshells, who make their arguments based upon "logic" rather than on "thus saith the Lord." I have written several chapters in my book on the Hardshell Baptist Cult dealing with this kind of hermeneutic.
Jason and the Hardshells, as I have shown in my book, make regeneration (rebirth) an unconscious experience, and affirm that it produces no sensations, no ideas, no convictions. Is this what the bible teaches? Is this what the original Baptists believed, prior to the "rise of the Hardshells" in the early 19th century?
Here is what John Gill wrote in his "Body of Divinity," that book where some Hardshells advance the theory that Gill changed his view regarding the instrumentality of the gospel in regeneration, a falsehood I have overthrown in the chapters in my book on "Gill and the Hardshells."
John Gill wrote:
"On Regeneration" (Chapter 11 - Body of Divinity)
"...regeneration, in this view of it, is no other than spiritual light in the understanding."
"The graces of Christ, as faith, and hope, and love, are wrought in the hearts of regenerate persons, and soon appear there."
"...such as are begotten again, are begotten to a lively hope, and have it, and believe in the Son of God; and love him that begot, and him that is begotten (1 Pet. 1:3; 1 John 5:1)."
"...that men are dead in trespasses and sins; and can no more quicken themselves than a dead man can; as soon might Lazarus have raised himself from the dead, and the dry bones in Ezekiel's vision, have quickened themselves and lived."
"...so the Spirit of God breathes on dry bones, and they live..."
"Regeneration is a passive work, or rather, men are passive in it; as they must needs be, in the first infusion and implantation of grace, and the quickening of them; even as passive as the first matter created was, out of which all things were made; and as a dead man, when raised from the dead is; or as the dry bones in Ezekiel's vision were, while the Spirit of God breathed upon them, and then they became active..."
"...regeneration is not of him that willeth; God, of his own will, begets men again, and not of theirs: nor are they born of "the will of men", of the greatest and best of men, who are regenerated persons themselves; these, of their will, cannot convey regenerating grace to others; if they could, a good master would regenerate every servant in his family; a good parent would regenerate every child of his; and a minister of the gospel would regenerate all that sit under his ministry; they can only pray and use the means; God only can do the work."
"...regeneration ought to precede baptism; faith and repentance, which are graces given in regeneration, are required previous to baptism..."
"...but though they are men, and men only, whom God regenerates, yet not all men; all men have not faith, and hope, and love; they are a kind of first fruits of his creatures, whom of his own will he begets with the word of truth..."
"IV. The effects of regeneration, or the ends to be answered, and which are answered by it, and which show the importance and necessity of it.
"1. A principal effect of it; or, if you will, a concomitant of it, is a participation of every grace of the Spirit. Regenerate ones have not only the promise of life made to them, but they have the grace of life given them; they live a new life, and walk in newness of life: they partake of the grace of spiritual light; before, their understandings were darkened; but now they are enlightened by the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledge of divine things; they were before, darkness itself; but now are made light in the Lord."
"...in regeneration, they are begotten to a "lively hope", and have it; a good hope, through grace, founded upon the person, blood, and righteousness of Christ, which is of use to them both in life and death...In short, regenerate persons are partakers of all the fruits of the Spirit; of all other graces, besides those mentioned; as humility, patience, self-denial, and resignation to the will of God."
"They are loved of God with an everlasting love; but then the first open display of it to them is in regeneration, when God draws them with lovingkindness to himself, as a fruit and effect, and so an evidence of his ancient love to them. They are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; but this is not known by them till the gospel comes, not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; working powerfully in them, regenerating, quickening, and sanctifying them..."
Now, could anything be more clear? Does Gill not speak for the Baptists of the 18th century? Do the Hardshells not speak highly of Dr. Gill, and yet refuse to follow him in this original Baptist view? Does Gill teach "Spirit Alone" regeneration? No! Does he teach that regeneration produces no convictions of the heart and mind about God and religious truth, as do Jason and the Hardshells?
Jason does say that God, in regeneration, gives the sinner knowledge that he needs a Savior. But, this is a contradiction to what he says elsewhere on the subject, for elsewhere he affirms that there is nothing learned in regeneration, that it is all on the subconscious level. Jason actually believes that regeneration only makes enlightenment possible, but is not enlightenment itself. Yet, Gill clearly did not agree with Hardshellism on this. Hardshellism says that God does not teach a man anything in regeneration! Yet Jesus said, in speaking of regeneration, "Every man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father comes unto me." (John 6: 45. This teaching of the Father is part of his work of "drawing" the sinner to Jesus. But, what does the Father teach in regeneration? Also, since Jason and the Hardshells are fond of bringing up the case of the infant and idiot to prove that regeneration is on the subconscious level, and that a person learns nothing, how does he harmonize that with Jesus saying that the work of being drawn to Jesus involves "learning"?
Jason said - "There is nothing unbiblical about insisting that regeneration precedes gospel acceptance and a profession of faith."
"Insisting"? Jason himself, as we shall see from his blog writings, admits that the new testament writers often spoke of regeneration in terms of gospel conversion. It seems then that the scriptures insist upon it. It is unbiblical, of course. This I have proven in my writings on hardshellism. Where is his biblical authority for affirming that regeneration precedes faith, occurs apart from faith, for the character known as a "regenerated unbeliever"? Why do Jason and the Hardshells "insist" on divorcing what God has joined together?
Jason then wrote:
"His central objection to Old Baptists is that they do not believe that the act of regeneration is always or ordinarily accompanied by the gospel as preached by men, not that the gospel is the means of regeneration per se, as in without the Spirit, or in supremacy to the Spirit."
Bingo! Correct! They deny what the bible clearly teaches, what the old confessions teach, what the true Old Baptists believed! The Spirit is supreme in the work of regeneration and it will be successful in every case. But, does Jason not say the same thing about conversion? Will he affirm that he was converted by the Holy Ghost? Or, will he say, that he was not converted by the Holy Spirit since means were involved? If he can say that he was converted by the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit was supreme in the work of conversion, even though the Spirit used the means of the gospel, why cannot he say the same in regard to regeneration?
Jason wrote:
"The question here is whether we can deduce from Scripture that regeneration always or even ordinarily occurs in the context of gospel preaching."
"Deduce"? Can Jason and the Hardshells not give us plain words from scripture that deny the use of means in the word of God? Why can we means Baptists produce many passages that say we are begotten by the gospel and word of truth for our position, plain words, and yet the Hardshells cannot produce a passage that affirms that "begetting" takes place apart from recognition and faith in the gospel truth? Again, Jason and the Hardshells are relying upon their human reasoning, which is faulty in regard to spiritual matters.
The divine "begetting" is said to be "with the word of truth," and the other scriptures never contradict that proposition. James, Paul, and Peter do not say "a few (some) are begotten by the word of God" but indicate that all of God's people are born again this way. Jason and the Hardshells often argue, from John 3: 8, that all the elect experience this "begetting" in exactly the same manner. Their position is, therefore, that none are begotten by (or under) the influence of gospel truth. Yet, if Jason admits that some (or even one) were regenerated by the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, whereby faith is produced, then he must say, to be consistent with his interpretation ("deduction") on John 3: 8, that all the elect are likewise "begotten with the word of truth."
I challenge Jason, or any other Hardshell, to show, from scripture, where a person is ever said to be begotten but who had not been converted?
Jason wrote:
"Garrett offers what he considers three proof texts of his view that gospel preaching is the ordinary means by which men are regenerated. I say "means" in the sense that it accompanies the act of regeneration, which even he makes distinct from preaching."
About the "making distinctions" I have already made rebuttal to his comments and logic on that point. I did offer passages that plainly say that men are begotten by the gospel, the word of truth, the word of God and Jason has not shown how those scriptures do not prove begetting by the gospel. I have shown what regeneration is in itself, how it is intimately connected with enlightenment, with coming in faith to Jesus. This faith can only come by the gospel per Paul in Romans 10, for Paul says "how shall they believe in him in whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" If they cannot have faith without hearing the gospel, then they cannot be regenerated without hearing the gospel, for faith and spiritual life are linked together in this divine "begetting" as John Gill said.
Jason wrote:
"He cites 1 Corinthians 4:15, James 1:18, and 1 Peter 1:23 as proof of his view. The general problem of accepting these texts as proof texts of his view is that even if we conceded that the texts refer to regeneration being performed by the preached gospel, how would this necessarily imply his contention that regeneration always occurs thusly? That inference would simply not follow logically from these texts."
Notice that Jason does not deal with the passages themselves here! "If we admit," he says, "for the sake of argument," it seems, that these passages taught regeneration by the means of the gospel. Should he not admit that these verses destroy his hardshellism? I have chapters in my book on these passages and do not want to elaborate here. Let Jason go and read them and then respond to my rebuttal of their contentions, claims, propositions, and hermenuetic. I have already addressed the point about whether all are born again the same way, and have done so extensively already in my ongoing book on hardshellism.
Jason wrote:
"No Primitive Baptist would deny that it has been the case that individuals under the sound of the preached gospel were regenerated and embraced and professed faith in Jesus Christ, as in Acts 13:48. However, such instances do not prove that it is always or normally so in reference to those deprived of outward revelation whether by geography or intellectual capacity."
This is a hardshell dodge on the relation. It is even a little "wily." In comparing the relation of the preaching of the gospel with the experience of regeneration, he is saying that preaching is not in any sense a cause, even though some were regenerated while listening to it, in much the same way that a room has nothing to do with an event occurring within it. But, this view is far from scriptural, as my writings on hardshellism have proven.
Jason speaks of those "deprived of outward revelation," meaning heathens, people who know not the true God and Jesus Christ, whom he wants to say are filled with people who have been "regenerated" and "begotten," as did C. H. Cayce in regard to the Athenian pagans, who he said were "regenerated" though worshipping false gods and knowing nothing of Jesus and the way of salvation. Antichrists born of the Spirit? Only Hardshells could affirm such heresy, such blasphemy. Why does Jason not accept what the London Confession says about the heathen? Does it not say all heathen are lost?
Jason wrote:
"What the texts Mr. Garrett cites and Acts 13:48 do show is that it is the nature of the truly regenerate to respond to the gospel in faith, if they are under the sound of it. It is inconsistent to suppose that a regenerate son would totally reject the gospel, as the same Spirit that testifies within them that they are the children of God would testify of the truth of the gospel (Romans 8:16)."
Certainly this view of Jason would not represent the majority view among today's Hardshells. First of all, the Hardshells are fond of pointing out that they are the one and only "true church," with valid baptisms and real converts, and the only ones entrusted with the gospel, the only ones preaching it! The view that most of the elect, who hear the gospel, will believe it, is not the majority view, but one more akin to the "liberal movement" among today's Hardshell denomination, many of whom are coming back to the Old Baptist faith as regards regeneration and means.
Jason said - "it is the nature of the truly regenerate to respond to the gospel in faith." This is close to the truth, but not the full truth. Let us add this statement and see if Jason can endorse it, or tell us why he cannot - "it is the nature of the truly regenerate to believe and repent at the moment they are regenerated"?
Jason wrote:
"It seems to me that Mr. Garrett commits the slippery slope fallacy of reasoning to suppose that distinguishing sonship from discipleship results in the unscriptural view that most mentally competent, mature adults now living that openly reject the gospel are going to heaven as ignorant sons."
Again, Jason wants to argue from logic, by his use of "reasoning," rather than upon plain propositions and statements from scripture. Jason admits, as we shall see from his own blog postings (to be examined in order) that the scriptures do not segregate regeneration from conversion in their inspired writings. So, by his own admission, he is making distinctions where he ought not to make them.
He again reasons about the supposed regeneration of infants and idiots but cites no scripture. I have addressed these logical arguments, "vain reasonings," in my book on the Hardshell argumentation on "Spirit Alone" regeneration and refer the reader to those chapters.
Jason wrote:
"An obvious teaching from 3:8 about the new birth is that it is not effected by any means or by any cause that we could observe. This naturally runs afoul of the idea that regeneration occurs only or even ordinarily through gospel preaching, as this would be an obvious cause."
Jesus connected, in John 3, being born again with believing the gospel (vss. 13-18) According to Jason and the Hardshells, Paul, James, and Peter, in teaching that the Spirit begets through the gospel, "run afoul" of what Jesus taught in John 3 about being "born again"?
Jason wrote:
"The text proves that the only relevant cause of the new birth is the Spirit of God, as the gospel as preached by men would be moot as far as it's effect on dead men.'
Jason resorts to the worn out logical reasoning invented by his Hardshell forefathers when he argues that the preaching of the gospel to the "dead" is stupid, nonsensical, and therefore any who believe it are illogical! Gill illogical? Keach, Kiffin, Spilsbury, Knollys, all stupid? Jason ought to read Watson and Clark regarding the lessons from Ezekiel preaching to the valley of dead dry bones and how such an event destroys Hardshell logic on preaching to the dead in order that they might live thereby. Jesus was constantly preaching to the non-elect, to the unregenerate, was he not? This I have shown in several chapters in my book, in the series on "Addresses to the Lost," how Jesus preached the gospel to those he knew were dead spiritually, and even told them how they could be saved! But, don't you know, Jesus was doing what was silly and illogical in preaching the gospel to the dead and telling them how they could be saved!
In conclusion, let me say that I have finished my review of Jason's first apologetic response to my writings and that I will be reviewing his other rebuttal postings next.
No comments:
Post a Comment