Jason's 2nd Rebuttal

This will be my reply to Jason's second rebuttal to my rebuttal of his postings against my writings on the Hardshells. Much of this posting was repitition and so I need not respond to it.

Jason said, in this posting, "Allow me to quote from Gill's Body of Divinity," all for the purpose of trying to prove that Gill gave credence to the Hardshell "Spirit Alone" view of regeneration. He then cites that place in Gill's Body of Divinity where Gill speculated, based upon human reason alone, how sinners might be regenerated apart from the gospel. Jason seems to be aware of my writings on this topic, for I have several chapters in my book titled "Gill and the Hardshells" and I deal with this passage, in chapters 58-65. See at

www.hardshellism.blogspot.com

Jason wrote:

"I have underlined, placed in bold, and italicized where Dr. Gill gives credence to the view I have defended. Dr. Gill plainly advanced both views here as plausible, though he still concludes an instrumental view. Dr. Gill's academic honesty is most praise-worthy, which is more than I can say for my opponent's constant sophistry."

Anyone can see the contradiction in these words. Thankfully Jason does not follow many of his forefathers, like John R. Daily, who in debate with Dr. Throgmorton, advanced the notion that Gill had "changed his mind" about means in regeneration and so, though his commentaries taught means, they were written in his younger years, when as yet he was not clear on the matter, but in his Body of Divinity, written in his later years, he shows his newer and clearer view on the subject. I have refuted that notion in my chapter series on Gill and Jason agrees with me that the section cited from Gill, which Jason also cites, does not show that Gill believed in the Hardshell "Spirit Alone" view of regeneration. But, even though Jason admits that the section does not show a change in Gill's view, disagreeing with Daily and many of his Hardshell forefathers who made that charge, he nevertheless wants to say that Gill gives the "Spirit Alone" or Hardshell view "plausibility." The consequences of this renders Dr. Gill guilty of taking a view that is not the clearest or most plausible view.

What Gill did in the passage in question is to give his speculation on the matter when guided strictly by human logic and reason, which is exactly the hermeneutic error of the Hardshells, as I have previously stated. Gill, when speculating on the "no instrumental means" view, used the word "seem" several times, saying "it seems such and such." He was using reason alone to look at the matter. Notice these words from the section cited by Daily and Jason.

"...yet this instrumentality of the word in regeneration seems not so agreeable to the principle of grace implanted in the soul in regeneration, and to be understood with respect to that; since that is done by immediate infusion, and is represented as a creation; and now as God made no use of any instrument in the first and old creation, so neither does it seem so agreeable that he should use any in the new creation..."

Based upon reason alone, without revelation, yes, it does "seem" as though the no means view has some merits to it, but are we, or was Gill, guided by reason in the matter? No, for he concludes his speculative section by saying:

"Though after all it seems plain, that the ministry of the word is the vehicle in which the Spirit of God conveys himself and his grace into the hearts of men; which is done when the word comes not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost; and works effectually, and is the power of God unto salvation; then faith comes by hearing, and ministers are instruments by whom, at least, men are encouraged to believe: "received ye the Spirit", says the apostle, "by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith": Ga 3:2 that is, by the preaching of the law, or by the preaching of the gospel? by the latter, no doubt."

Does John Gill go with logical "plausibility" or scriptural "plausibility"? One is plausible by the standard of human reasoning alone, but the other is plausible because it is "plain" in scripture that God uses the means of "the ministry of the word" to regenerate his people. When he says, in conclusion, after giving logical speculation of the matter, "THOUGH," he is saying that it is not in fact that way according to sacred scripture! If Jason and the Hardshells want to follow scripture alone, as Gill, they will reject logical plausibility in favor of plain scriptural statements.

Jason next cites these words of mine:

"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.""

Then he comments, by saying:

"I agree with Brother Garrett that Dr. Gill did not seem to change his mind in the afore quoted paragraph, but he certainly entertained as plausible the Primitive Baptist view of James 1:18, 1 Cor. 4:15, and 1 Peter 1:23. A man is being dishonest to not admit this. It is clear, therefore, that Primitive Baptist views of these texts were at least contemporary with Gill, which disproves Brother Garret's sweeping generalizations of Baptist history."

I am very glad that Jason rejects the oft repeated false charge of John R. Daily, and many others since his day, who have falsely accused Gill of changing his mind on the matter. Hopefully Jason will work hard to correct his brethren on this matter! But, you know, if the Hardshells can misinterpret and twist the words of Dr. Gill, they can also do so with scripture. Jason admits that his forefathers often got it wrong on Gill, but will not admit that they got it wrong on scripture.

It is a base falsehood for Jason to say that Gill thought that it was scripturally plausible for the above passages to be interpreted as denying means in the divine work of begetting (regeneration). Gill always taught that these verses clearly taught that the gospel was a means in regeneration.