In a blog posting titled "Garrett's Use of Osbourne" our Hardshell apologist wrote the following in response to my recent posting on Elder James Osbourne.
"The quotations he cites of Osbourne do not clearly indicate that Osbourne believed that the gospel effects regeneration; rather, they indicate that the gospel converts the regenerate, bringing them to a knowledge of their eternal salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 1:10). On this basis, all Primitive Baptists would accept these quotations. Obviously from the quotations Osbourne believed that only the sinners ordained to eternal life would believe, so though the call of the preached word might fall on the ears of the damned, it would only be efficacious to those who knew they were sinners by the new birth."
But, you see, I never affirmed that Osbourne believed in means in "regeneration," but did believe in means for a conversion he believed was the new birth and was as much necessary for going to heaven as regeneration. That was the point. Osbourne did not believe that the salvation coming from believing the gospel was a "time" or "temporal" salvation, but an eternal salvation. That is the point! Jason and today's Hardshells do not believe as did Osbourne and the first founding fathers of Hardshellism! He wants us to believe that he is in basic agreement with Hardshellism, but the facts of the case show them to be fundamentally different.
"On this basis" they will accept Osbourne's words? What does that mean except "we will accept Osbourne's words if we can twist them to mean such and such"? It is much the same way his forefathers, in Fulton, in the year of our Lord 1900, said - "we can accept the old London confession if we can twist them to mean such and such"! It is the same way they do certain passages of scripture dealing with means, "oh we can accept that because we think it says such and such"!
Jason wrote:
"Primitive Baptists who argue that the gospel is addressed to "believers" only mean by this that only those who have been born again can rejoice and appreciate the gospel."
Addressed to "believers" in what? I have already asked Jason to tell us about this and he has run from addressing it! What do the "believers" believe before they have heard the gospel? Again, as I said, the Hardshells dispute what Paul said in Romans 10, for he said one cannot be a "believer" before he hears the gospel. Hardshells say one is a "believer" before he hears the gospel! Obviously it is not the gospel they believe.
This kind of "believer," that one is before he knows anything about Jesus, was he made such in regeneration? So infants and idiots believe something as part of their regeneration? So, it is not on the subconscious level?
Jason wrote:
"The plain truth is, we do not know who the elect are; therefore, the gospel ought to be preached indiscriminately to all men that will hear it."
But, what does this prove? It is a dodge! Suppose you did know a person to whom your were preaching was not elect? Not born again? Would you still preach the gospel to him? Would you call upon him to repent and believe the gospel? To invite him to come to Christ for salvation? Did Jesus not know who was dead and alive when he preached the gospel? What did he preach to those he called "children of the devil"? What did John the Baptist preach to the vipers? Did he not warn them to flee from the wrath to come?
Jason wrote:
"Many of the others that Garrett names as supporting gospel means in regeneration, particularly Clark, are historically inconsistent in this support, which seems to indicate that the anti-missionary controversy had the effect of clarifying what people believed about gospel instrumentality in regeneration."
Clark was not inconsistent. How can Jason say this? Will he produce the evidence where Clark ever advocated that hearing and believing the gospel were unnecessary for eternal salvation? Did he not say that the "voice" of Jesus, that raises the spiritually dead, was the "gospel"? Jason should read my series of chapters titled "Addresses to the Lost" and be corrected in his thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment