Jason's 3rd Rebuttal

Jason, in his next rebuttal to my response to his writings against me, again brings up the matter of John Gill. He wrote:

"As posted earlier, Dr. Gill allowed for the validity of viewing these passages apart from gospel means, as the "Word of God" in James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:23 is translated from the Greek word, logos, which refers to Jesus Christ. Gill also argued that 1 Cor. 4:15's use of "begotten" was plausibly interpreted as a drawing out of the principle of grace infused in men at regeneration - what I have called the root of faith of trust in God, indicating that the term "begotten" is not regeneration in the first instance, but a context of gospel conversion."

I have already refuted this line of reasoning on Gill in my previous posting. It is a falsehood. Gill never gave any scriptural credence to the no means view of the Hardshells. Gill always taught that I Cor. 4: 15 dealt with regeneration and the instrumentality of the gospel in it.

I want Jason to tell us what he means by "the root of faith" and the "root of trust." Does he mean his "seed faith"? The kind that does not believe or know anything? That kind that is hidden and that does not come by preaching?

Jason wrote:

"I acknowledge that Gill would insist that this conversion follows regeneration for those sons under the sound of the ministry of the gospel, for it is completely consistent with the principle of grace infused in regeneration - a position I endorse. I think these texts can be used to support the inference that a general gospel rejection by sons is not consistent of those that have truly experienced the new birth."

Jason tries his best to get Gill to agree with him, but he cannot! He agrees that Gill ever held to the means view, and yet wants to try to claim him anyway!

Besides, if one reads Gill on "regeneration" he will see that Gill recognized that some use the term in a strict sense and others in a broad sense. Gill never believed that regeneration was a completed work until the person was brought to faith in Jesus, exactly what I believe, but not Jason and the Hardshells. So, who is the real Old Baptist here? Jason needs to quit putting words in the mouth of Gill and twisting his words.

Jason wrote:

"However, to infer a strict timetable of conversion immediately following regeneration repudiates Luke 22:31,32. Brother Garrett agrees that this text's use of "converted" cannot refer to regeneration, which is exactly my point. These texts prove a context of gospel conversion apart from regeneration, which he even admits."

Jason, you can repeat the same argument over and over for weeks and months, but it has been successfully refuted. It is Argumentum ad nauseam.

The word "sanctify," like the word "converted," may refer to the initial act of regeneration or to post regeneration experiences. To argue that because conversion, in some instances, occurred after regeneration, and therefore was not part of regeneration itself, would be the same as arguing that because sanctification, in some instances, occurred after regeneration, therefore sanctification was not part of regeneration.

Interestingly, I ask Jason about whether the statement of Jesus - "except you be converted and become as little children" - referred to regeneration, and he has not told us. I wonder why? I also brought up Acts 3: 19 where Peter said to lost sinners - "repent ye, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out" - and showed that this repentance and conversion were words describing the experience of regeneration. Jason never addressed my arguments on this passage. I stated that the words "repent" and "converted" denote the kind of "change" that occurs in the new birth. But, Jason's view is that a man is "regenerated" but not changed in his heart or in his thinking, certainly not in his faith. No wonder Hardshells have had troubles with the "hollow log" view of regeneration, or to the "no change" view of regeneration!

Forgiveness or remission of sins is the substance of the experience of salvation or of regeneration. Why does Jason want to divorce the experiencing of pardon from the regeneration experience? Jason says that many will be pardoned and justified who never repented or were converted!

Jason wrote:

"Brother Garrett was confused why I brought up Luke 22:31,32 in the context of James 1:18. I brought it up in the context of my exegesis of James 1:18 to show that, though I argued that James 1:18 refers to sonship and discipleship (as they were reborn to be a firstfruit of the elect), the gospel conversion of Peter shows that the discipleship was of varying degrees and of diverse process, as he denied Christ."

Jason is very contradictory on James 1: 18. In his initial postings he seemed to say that "the word of truth" was the gospel, but later argued that it was a reference to Jesus. But, if the "word of truth" is Jesus, then why does he feel a need to apply it "conversion" (as he understands conversion)?

Here is what brother Fralick wrote to me about Jason's argumentation on this verse.

"I believe Jason is now contradicting himself. He wants to argue that James 1:18 is referring to gospel conversion in his post 'Gospel Conversion':

"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."

Yet he claims in his latest post 'Garrett's Response 3.0' that the word logos is used there, and so then refers to Christ instead:

"As posted earlier, Dr. Gill allowed for the validity of viewing these passages apart from gospel means, as the "Word of God" in James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:23 is translated from the Greek word, logos, which refers to Jesus Christ"

If he feels it's gospel conversion under consideration, then it can't be Christ! If he feels it's Christ, then it can't be gospel conversion!"

Jason next cites these words of mine:

"Does Jason not accept those prophetic statements about God writing his word upon the heart as describing regeneration? Does Jason not believe that the infant and idiot, in being regenerated, have this revelation, this writing upon their hearts, that they have "learned" of the Father?"

Jason responds by saying:

"This writing, as in Hebrews 8:8-12, is addressed to the moral affections of the regenerate once they have the stony heart replaced with a heart of flesh. That it does not refer to teaching in an intellectual sense is evident from the very contrast in the text in verse 11. The "learning" of the new birth directly from the Father is an expression to communicate the change in moral orientation of the new birth; it does not actually connote logical, mental processes as, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit..." (1 Cor. 2:9, 10)"

First, let us look at some of the verses under consideration.

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb. 8: 10-12)

First, a couple initial observations about the fulfillment of the new covenant promises mentioned above in the writer's citation from the old testament prophet. This covenant came into force when Jesus died. It is that covenant which God is now fulfilling. There are stages in the fulfillment. First, there was the initial fulfilling of it at Pentecost. Second, there is now a continuous fulfilling of it in the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing sinners into the new covenant and into the enjoyment of its blessed promises. Third, there is the final fulfillment of it at the return of Jesus and during his milleniall reign. That period, alluded to in the prophetic promise, when "all shall know me," is the millenial age. The reason assigned for the absence of evangelism, of saying to people "know the Lord," is that "all (already) know me." The world is fully evangelized.

What experience is denoted by God's writing his laws upon the heart? Is it regeneration? Conversion? Sanctification? What experience is denoted by God "putting" his "laws" into the "mind"? If Jason affirms that "regeneration" (apart from conversion) is under consideration, then he has problems with his regeneration paradigm and his unscriptural premises.

He recognizes these problems. Jason has staked out a position on regeneration where he has affirmed that cognition is not involved in the experience. He has affirmed that it is an experience below consciousness, without the involvement of the heart and mind. He has said that one does not "learn" (come to know) anything in the regeneration/new birth experience. Further, he has affirmed that a "regenerated" man does not "believe" (have belief and convictions) anything.

Jason also integrates those new covenant promises not mentioned in the Hebrew text into the discussion. Those verses speak of God performing spiritual heart surgery in "taking away" the "hard" and "stony" heart and replacing it with a "heart of flesh," or a "soft heart." These promises are found in these verses from Ezekiel.

"And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God." (Eze. 11: 19, 20)

"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Eze. 36: 25-27)

Jason divides, seemingly, these new covenant promises into two categories. First, there is the regeneration category, whereby some of these new covenant blessings are experienced. Second, there is the conversion category, whereby the other blessings, not experienced in the regeneration category, are experienced. He then argues that the promise of God to "write" upon the heart is a post regeneration experience, not the regeneration experience itself. Jason said - "this writing is addressed to...the regenerate." Notice his division of parts of the promised blessings into distinct categories when he said - "once they have the stony heart replaced with a heart of flesh," then they can experience the other promises of the covenant.

This disecting of the promises of the covenant into distinct categories and experiences, where one set of promises, the regeneration ones, are unconditional, after the Calvinistic and predestinarian manner, and where another set of promises, the conversion ones, are conditional, after the Arminian and free will manner. This is not "rightly dividing the word of truth" but "putting asunder" those things which God has "joined together," however. Let us break down the new covenant promises and experiences of the above cited verses.

1. God's engraving his laws upon the heart
2. God's putting his laws into the mind
3. God's putting his spirit within
4. God's removing the hard and stony heart
5. God's giving a soft heart
6. People becoming God's children
7. Forgiveness of sins
8. They shall be taught of God and come to know God
9. They will be made clean and saved from idolatry
10. Cause his people to walk in his ways

The Hardshells cannot put all these experiences into their paradigm understanding of the experience of regeneration/new birth. Thus they have to divide up these experiences into those which are essential to salvation and those which are not essential. How do they decide which are which? Well, they apply their man-made unscriptural premises to the verses! So, they look at these promises and any promise that requires the means of the gospel to effect, they put into their "conversion" category, into those promises which are conditional, and which may not be fulfilled in the people of God, but any passage that does not require means, they put into the "regeneration" category, into the unconditional, Calvinistic, predestinarian category. This Jason would call an example of "rightly dividing the word of truth"!

The problem with this view is that it forces on the prophecies distinctions that are not present and which grossly misinterpret them. If one of the promises is unconditional and certain, for all the elect, then so are all. Likewise, if one of the promises is conditional, as the Arminans teach, then all are conditional.

Learning something is part of the experience of regeneration. Being convicted, and believing something, are part of the experience. Hardshell rejection of this truth has lead them to twist other verses of scripture and not to take them in their plain sense.

Jason wrote:

"That it does not refer to teaching in an intellectual sense is evident from the very contrast in the text in verse 11. The "learning" of the new birth directly from the Father is an expression to communicate the change in moral orientation of the new birth; it does not actually connote logical, mental processes..."

Jason only makes assertions here without any proof. Further, what he says is in direct opposition to what is stated in the text! To divorce faith, hope, and love, from the new birth, as the Hardshells do, is outlandish interpretation. Faith, hope, and love, involve more than just affections, but the intellect, the mental powers. Did God not say he would write or put his laws into the mind? How can you divorce cognition from the mind?

"Learning" only means to change "moral orientation"? What does that mean? Simply a change in nature but no change in faith, or mental orientation? Is repentance divorced from this experience? Does "repentance" not involve mental and belief change?

Jason's Hardshell idea of the regeneration experience is nothing but "hollow log."