Jason's 5th Rebuttal

From Jason's latest rebuttal one can observe how short the rebuttal was, how he did not respond to my questions or answer my evidence, historical and scriptural. In this latest rebuttal, Jason not only omits responding to so much of my proofs, but also repeats himself, and omits bringing up any new arguments or proofs. In this latest posting, Jason cited these words of mine.

See here

"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?""

In response Jason wrote:

"The fact that some Primitive Baptists interpret certain Scriptures dealing with obedience in terms of the regeneration experience is a de facto observation of Brother Garrett, having spent time among the Primitive Baptists. I have no doubt that you can find inconsistencies in the beliefs of many individuals. What his observations reveal is that some modern Primitive Baptists would rather place certain texts in a context of regeneration than admit that some degree of gospel conversion is the natural extension of sonship in our gospel era, which I believe can be inferred from 2 Cor. 4:6 and Hebrews 5:9."

Jason is taking a view that most Hardshells will not accept, in his divorcing "obedience" from the experience of regeneration. Most Hardshells say that the dead sinner obeys the call to life when the Lord speaks to him in the work of regeneration. They typically interpret "my sheep hear (obey) my voice" as talking about the experience of regeneration. They typically, and correctly, say that this obedience is passive obedience, effectual, the kind of obedience Lazarus rendered when he was ordered to come forth from the dead.

II Cor. 4: 6 and Hebrews 5: 9 only say that some of God's born again people will believe in Jesus and obey the gospel? Again, Jason needs to deal with the passages I brought up that say that ALL who reject faith in Jesus are eternally doomed. Why has he not responded to my proofs on this?

It is interesting how Jason continues to confess that Hardshells are inconsistent in how they preach the experience of regeneration. I find this ironic because he argued that the Hardshell controversy created "clarity" on the subject, and that the Hardshells are the beneficiaries of that new found "clarity." If they are so clear on the subject, why all the inconsistencies and contradictions?

Jason wrote:

"The failure to acknowledge that the Scripture plainly reveals that discipleship is consistent with sonship in this gospel era, and that some degree of discipleship is the natural consequence of sonship under the sound of the gospel is representative where some Primitive Baptists have departed from the emphases of prior years. If Brother Garrett would limit his remarks to this as I have stated it, I should have no quarrel with him."

Jason thinks he is giving the sense of the passages on the damnation of all gospel rejecters by affirming that those passages simply teach that the regenerated ones will only likely believe the gospel when they hear, not that they will definitely. Yet, the verses I have introduced do not say that only some of the saved believed the gospel, but that they all did.

Jason then cites these words of mine:

"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..."

He then responds by saying:

"Brother Garrett has misunderstood my position. In order to be "firstfruits of his creatures", the early disciples must have accepted the engrafted Logos (by which they were born again in verse 18), which accompanies the continuing work of sanctification unto glorification. The volitional aspect of verse 18 is contained in the designation of these early believers as firstfruits. This is the manner in which verse 18 and 21 indicate that conversion to the gospel and accepting the Logos that has previously been engrafted in regeneration is the natural reaction of sons."

To become the "first fruit of his creatures" involves actual creation! It means to become his creatures, new creatures, his children. The use of "firstfruits" does not negate the fact that the apostle affirms that God has willed that we be "begotten" and this is all the same as being newly created. Certainly the first converts to Christ are firstfruits. Being born again and created in Christ is "with the word of truth." God ordained that some become spiritual "creatures," some before others.

Jason wrote:

"I was attempting to show in my original posting of, "Gospel Conversion", that even in Brother Garrett's system of understanding these texts, he would have to infer a volitional context of gospel conversion to escape Arminianism by James 1:21. Evidently he escapes Arminianism in James 1:21 by claiming that an effectual call of God by the Spirit determines that sons accept the preached gospel."

I do infer a volitional context in those verses. How could I not? Faith involves a recognition and an act of the mind and will. But, I do not divorce the activity of the heart and mind in the work of regeneration. In fact, in scripture, regeneration is often defined in terms of activity! Is not coming to life an activity on the part of the dead one? Does God not promise that he will cause a certain activity of heart, mind, conscience, and affections, in his elect? Did we not look at those new covenant promises and see how the heart, mind, and understanding were the objects of God's regenerating work?

Who is Arminian on James 1: 21? Jason implies that my view is "Arminian," but ironically, it is his view of the passage that is Arminianism! This reminds me of the battles that Elder Watson and Elder Clark had with Jason's kind of Hardshell. Watson said it was the tactic of the "ultraist" faction (the faction that denied means in regeneration and did not exhort the lost) to call those who believed in means and gave exhortations to the lost to mislabel them as "Arminian." Clark argued that it was Jason's kind of thinking that was the actual "Arminian." Wrote Elder Clark:

"But some object and say, Why preach repentance to dead sinners? They can neither hear, see nor understand. That is true; that they hear not, see not, understand not, so far as the preacher is concerned or is able to effect them; but why did the prophet call upon the dry bones to hear the word of the Lord? He answered, “And I prophesied as I was commanded.” That was authority then for all who feared God, and it is still the authority for all such. This objection, however, will lie against all the exhortations and admonitions to the saints as it does against addresses to the ungodly, for the Christian has no more power than the unbeliever. The difference between them is not in the power, but in the will; as it written: "To will is present with me, but to perform that which is good I find not.”"

The theory that we must preach to men according to the power they possess to obey is sublimated Arminianism, and yet; the advocates of it (Men like Jason and neo Hardshells - SG) are very fraid of being called Arminians. Christians know, however, by the word of his grace, and by the revelation of that word in their hearts, when it comes in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, that Christ’s word is true which says, “Without me you can do nothing.” The Spirit takes the word of Christ and shows it to his people, and thus it is verified in the experience.

To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism.

The minister of Christ does not preach to any class of men upon the consideration of their ability or inability. He has the sentence of death in himself, and therefore cannot trust in himself; and he has no confidence in the flesh of any other, but his confidence, his faith and hope, is in God, from whence alone are his expectations."

("What To Preach and How To Preach" Written by John Clark in Zion's Advocate--August 1875)

Those Primitive Baptists today who interpret the verses about God making his people willing by his power, or working in them to will and choose, as dealing with regeneration, are in agreement with their forefathers. To deny that these verses refer to a sovereign efficacious work of God, as the work of regeneration is acknowledged to be, is to manifest Arminianism. Jason's view about conversion is pure Arminianism, and he knows it, and yet he thinks my position, which affirms means in James 1, that the will acts in the experience of regeneration, and that the salvation of the passage is eternal, is "Arminian"! Wonder of wonders! Does Jason deny that God causes men to will and to choose? Will Jason admit it? Or will he deny it and take the Arminian "free will" defense? Well, don't be curious any longer! Here is his denial and his Arminian defense!

Jason wrote:

"However, this would seem to deny the volitional aspect of James 1:21. If the acceptation of verse 21 was effected by the Spirit irresistably (sic), that would categorically preclude man's volition as it relates to the cause of the accepting. This is counter-intuitive to the natural reading of this text; he explains away what intuitively seems to be the volitional acts of men in this text. If they accept the engrafted word irresistably, how is man truly volitional in his acceptance of it? He may want to argue that men are uncoerced in their acceptance, but how are they truly uncoerced if they accept the word by force of grace that is irresistable?"

Jason's logic has produced this premise - "no one accepts the truth of the gospel by the Spirit irresistibly." Is this not what the "Arminians" say? Also, did Paul not accept the truth of the gospel this way in his experience? Was he not regenerated and converted at the same time? Did Paul not say his conversion was a "pattern" to others? Do you not say that John 3: 8 teaches that all are regenerated precisely in the same manner? Then should not all be regenerated and converted at the same time as was Paul? Where is Jason's view taught in scripture? Do the scriptures not rather constantly show that the regeneration experience involved the action of the heart, mind, conscience, and will?