Jason's 5th Revised

Jason, in his latest attempt to rebut the arguments I have presented, 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."

Not only are discipleship and sonship "consistent" but so are regeneration and conversion. But, what Jason means by "consistent with" is simply that the regenerated will possibly or likely be converted to Jesus, not that they absolutely will. But, I have consistently shown how regeneration and conversion are linked together in scripture and in the old Baptist confessions so that you cannot have one without the other. I need not continue to reply to Jason's mere assertions to the contrary.

I cited a verse that says, absolutely, that all who know not God and who obey not the gospel will be eternally punished but Jason interpreted the verse (II Thess. 1: 8, 9) to simply say that only some of those who disobey the gospel and reject Christ will be lost. How is that for biblical hermeneutics? In regard to categorical propositions Jason wrote:

"It is plain that qualifications are in order before we can simply embrace that it is categorically true that "ALL who reject faith in Jesus are eternally doomed".

"It seems clear that Garrett has committed a category mistake in ascribing damnation to all who disobey the gospel; if it is maximally true that all who disobey the gospel are damned no one would be saved."

"...even after regeneration they need the perfecting influence of the Spirit in sanctification. The only way to understand the text is as a maxim, not an absolute rule ..."

"You cannot surmise qualifications from the text; therefore, logically, more than a general statement of what is characteristic of the damned should not be advocated."

All this is strange coming from someone who claims to have studiesd philosophy, for logic is a basic part of such a study. Understanding categorical propositions and syllogisms is a fundamental part of logic and Jason shows he has no knowledge of how to tell the difference in a universal versus a particular proposition. There are four types of categorical propositions, They are designated alphabetically as:

A proposition is a universal affirmative: All S is P
E proposition is a universal negative: No S is P
I proposition is a particular affirmative: Some S is P
O proposition is a particular negative: Some S is not P

If we look at Paul's words in II Thess. 1: 8, 9, can we tell which proposition it is? Is it universal or limited? Does Paul say "some of those who know not God and obey not the gospel will not be eternally destroyed"? Does Paul affirm that some of the saved, who escape "eternal destruction," nevertheless did not know God and did not obey his gospel? Jason argues that the language is not universal but limited, avowing that Some S (unbelievers) are P (saved). But, the language of Paul will not allow a limited proposition. I do not need to use the words "all" or "every" in the proposition to affirm a universal proposition. They are necessarily implied (deduced). The absence of such words do not imply a limited categorical proposition.

What are Paul's categorical terms? Those who know God versus those who know not God. Those who obey the gospel and those who do not obey. There is eternal destruction and eternal salvation, or the saved class and the damned class. The questions are: 1) Are there any of the class of "those who know not God" who will not suffer eternal destruction? 2) Are there any of the class of those who "obey not the gospel" who will be eternally saved?

If I say "humans are creatures" I do not mean that only some humans are creatures. I am saying that there is no entity in existence that can be called a human non-creature. I could say "all humans are creatures," but I would simply be stating what is already implied and doing it for emphasis. A person who affirms particular and limited propositions will always use terms of limitation, such as "some," "many," "most," "few," etc. Those adjectives limit the proposition and argues that not all of class P are of class S.

Jason's attempt to make Paul's universal categorical propositions into limited ones is an example of resisting the text and refusing to submit to it.

In my previous rebuttal I cited these verses from the scriptures that speak in universal propositions.

1. They will be "punished with eternal destruction." (II Thess. 1: 8, 9)
2. They are "under the wrath of God." (John 3: 36)
3. They shall "die in their sins." (John 8: 24)
4, They will be "condemned" in the judgment. (Mark 16: 16)

Jason then responded by saying:

"These passages, like 2 Thess. 1:7-9, can be rebutted with the same logic I used."

These passages cannot be "rebutted" with Jason's Hardshell "logic." His logic on II Thess. 1: 8, 9 was shown to be invalid. Instead of the word "rebutted" we can substitute the words "resisted" and "twisted," and have Jason's word to read - "these passages, like II Thess. 2: 1: 7-9, can be resisted and twisted with the same logic."

Let me add another verse to II Thess. 1: 8, 9, one in the same epistle and context.

"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." (II Thess. 2: 9-13)

"All" who "believed not the truth" shall be "damned"? Is this not clearly a universal categorical proposition? Do Jason and the Hardshells believe this? Paul identifies the unbelieving as not chosen to salvation. Those who believed the truth, however, he identifies as the chosen. Notice also that Paul says that "salvation" is the result of "receiving" the truth. Is this not eternal salvation? How can the Hardshells deny it?

Notice also these words of Paul:

"But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath." (Rom. 2: 8)

What does Paul say will be the destiny of those who obey not the gospel truth? He says they will receive "indignation" and "wrath."

Let us ask Jason if discipleship is the "natural consequence" of regeneration in the same sense that breathing is a "natural consequence" of being alive?

"Some Primitive Baptists have departed from the emphases of prior years"? Has not Jason also departed from the beliefs of those Baptists who wrote the confessions? Has Jason also not departed from the beliefs of the founding fathers of Hardshellism? Did the founding fathers of Hardshellism not believe that all the elect would be converted and such conversion was spiritual birth per Jesus in John 3?

Jason, in responding to my reference to John 10, where Jesus says "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me," said - "It is clear that John 10:27 is not referring to regeneration." He says this and yet he claims to be an old Baptist! Can he name a Baptist theologian prior to the 19th century who believed as he does? I have already asked him to give evidence of Hardshell beliefs prior to the 19th century and he has produced none! Revealing is it not?

Does Jesus not equate "the sheep" with "the elect"? When Jesus says "my sheep hear my voice," does he mean only some of them, or all of them? As a categorical proposition it is universal, what is true of all the class identified as "sheep." If I say "humans are mortal," do I mean only some humans, or all humans? How Jason can read the words of Jesus and interpret them to mean that only some of the sheep will hear his voice is a clear example of Hardshell stubbornness to accept what the scriptures say and an example of their twisting of scripture.

When Jason reads John 5: 25, 28, about the "dead" ones "hearing" the "voice of the Son of God," and being quickened, does he not argue that this "voice" is not the gospel? That it is always effectual and irresistible? Yes, he does. Then why does he take a totally different view about hearing the voice of Christ in John 10? In John 10 the voice of Christ is the gospel, but not in John 5! In John 5 regeneration is the result of hearing the voice of Christ, but in John 10 conversion is the result of hearing the voice of Christ. In John 5 the voice cannot be resisted, but in John 10 it can be resisted!

John Gill wrote:

"And the sheep hear his voice...the shepherd's, even the voice of Christ; and which is no other than the Gospel, which is a voice of love, grace, and mercy; which proclaims peace, pardon, liberty, life, righteousness, and salvation; and which is a soul quickening, alluring, delighting, refreshing, and comforting voice: this the people of Christ are made to hear, not only externally, but internally; so as to understand it, delight in it, and distinguish it from another: and these are called "sheep", and that before conversion; not because they have the agreeable properties of sheep; nor because predisposed unto, and unprejudiced against the Gospel of Christ, for they are the reverse of these; nor can some things be said of them before, as after conversion, as that they hear the voice of Christ, and follow him; nor merely by anticipation, but by reason of electing grace, and because given to Christ the great shepherd, under this character, to be kept and fed by him. And they are so called after conversion..."

"For they know his voice; in the Gospel, which directs and encourages them to exercise grace in him, and to walk in the path of duty: this they know by the majesty and authority of it; and by the power with which it comes to their souls; and by its speaking of him, and leading to him; and by the evenness, harmony, and consistency of it."

"and I am known of mine; not in a general way, as devils and external professors may know him, but with a special, spiritual, and saving knowledge: Christ's own approve of him, as their shepherd and their Saviour, and desire no other; they love him above all, in the sincerity of their souls, and with a love as strong as death; they trust in him as their shepherd, believing they shall not want; and appropriate him to themselves, as their own; and care for him, his cause and interest, his Gospel, ordinances, and ministers; and are not ashamed to own him as theirs, in the most public manner."

"and they shall hear my voice; in the Gospel, not only externally, but internally; which is owing to his powerful and efficacious grace, who quickens them, and causes them to hear and live; unstops their deaf ears, and gives them ears to hear; and opens their hearts, to attend to his word, and gives them an understanding of it."

"Ver. 26. But ye believe not,.... In me, as the Messiah:

because ye are not of my sheep; they were not among the sheep given him by his Father, were they, they would have come to him; that is, have believed in him, according to Joh 6:37, they were not the chosen of God, predestinated unto eternal life; for as many as are ordained of God to eternal happiness, do believe in God's own time, Ac 13:48; but these not being the elect of God, had not the faith of God's elect."

"Ver. 28. And I give unto them eternal life,.... Christ gives eternal life to his sheep, or people now; he gives them a spiritual life, or a life of grace, which issues in eternal life; he gives them himself, who is the true God and eternal life, and whoever has him has life; he gives them the knowledge of himself, which is life eternal..."

Now, do the Hardshells accept these words of Dr. Gill, the leading representative of the "Old Baptists" of the 18th century? They know they do not. How can they be taken seriously then, when they say "we are the real old Baptists"? Jason takes a minorty view of today's Hardshells when he argues that the "voice of Christ," in John 10, is a different "voice of Christ" than talked about in John 5: 25-28. Most Hardshells would say they are the same voice, that voice that calls effectually and is irresistible for the elect. Jason says the "voice of Christ" in John 10 is heard in gospel preaching, but that the "voice of Christ," in John 5, is heard apart from gospel preaching.

Most Hardshells would disagree with Jason is his interpretation of John 10, with his denial that it is dealing with regeneration and with eternal salvation. Most Hardshells accept the idea of passive obedience, a thing condemned by Jason. Jason is parroting the ideology of Elder J. H. Oliphant, a Hardshell patriarch of yesteryear, who taught, in his book on "Thoughts on the Will," that the word "obedience" can never be said to be "passive," but is always active, necessarily involving a free, unforced decision. When I read this book years ago, my first thought was that this idea was nothing but "Campbellism" in a Hardshell skin. Campbellites also argue that creature "obedience" necessarily entails the free acquiescence of the heart, mind, or will. If God cause, or force, a man to obey, then it could not properly be called "obedience."

We already know how Jason is a disciple of Elder Lemuel Potter, Jason acknowledging Potter as one of the Hardshell great ones. However, Potter was a renegade Hardshell who became vocal in his views in the last quarter of the 19th century. Potter was a leader in the minority faction of "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists that rejected the gospel as a means in regeneration, new birth, or in eternal salvation. He was the leader of that group that Elder Watson called "ultraists" and "modern innovators." He debated Elder Throgmorton on the question - "Who are the Old Baptists?" (1887) He argued for the direct speaking, no means, view of regeneration, and that knowledge of, and faith in, Jesus, was not necessary to be saved. Potter later had a debate with some of the PBs who still retained a belief in means and in the requirement of faith, in the early 1880s, about this question. The two leading men on the means side were Elders Pence and Burnam, the latter an associate editor of Zion's Advocate with Elder John Clark.

In the Mt. Carmel church trial, in the early 19th century, Elder Burnam testified that it was not till the latter quarter of the 19th century that the "Primitive" Baptists began to wholeheartedly rejecting means and faith in regeneration. Burnam was correct and the historical records back him up. So, when Jason holds up Elder Potter as a man to be admired, I must disagree. Potter can rightly be called one of the founders of Neo-Hardshellism.

Along with Potter, we cannot ignore Elder Oliphant, the man who was voted president of that body of esteemed elders who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky, in 1900, and who did a "hatchet job" on the 1689 London Confession. Oliphant and Potter both helped to "clarify" the Hardshell's novel soteriological system.

Are Oliphant and Jason right? Does the word "obedience" necessarily involve resistibility and freedom to do or not to do? Was the hearing of the voice of Jesus, by the sheep, an act of obedience? When the Lord calls the dead forth to life, by a command, do the dead obey the command when they come forth?

Jason wrote:

"As touching this idea of "passive obedience" in regeneration, this concept is oxymoronic. Lazarus was not obedient, not even "passively", in the moment of creation ex nihilo in coming from death to life. It could be said that Lazarus was obedient in coming forth from the tomb, but this assumes he came out of his own power..."

"Notice how Garrett confounds obedience, which presupposes uncoerced volition, and an effectual call of God, which regenerates apart from the will of man."

"...that which is effectually worked by God as a cause cannot be volitionally willed by man as the same cause."

According to Webster, to "obey" means "to follow the commands or guidance of," or "to conform to or comply with." Obedience also involves submission.

If I say - "falling objects obey the laws of physics," do I mean that they do so by a free will choice, or imply that falling objects may disobey the laws of physics? When the scriptures say that "the winds and the waves obey him (Matt. 8: 27)," do they imply that the winds and the waves could have resisted the Lord's commands? Jesus said that a man of great faith can say to a tree "be plucked up by the root and be thou planted in the sea," and that the tree would "obey." Therefore, the Hardshell notion that "obedience" always implies the possibility of successful resistance, or a free will decision, is false. If I say - "the dog has learned to obey several commands," do I mean that the dog chose to obey? James wrote:

"Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body." (James 3: 3)

Did James use the wrong word here? Did James not know that horses can't "obey"? That "obedience" always involves volition, as Jason affirms?

Jason wants to divorce any and all kinds of "obedience" from regeneration and eternal salvation. But, the scriptures will not support him in this enterprise.

"And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him." (Mark 1: 27)

Was the obedience of these demons compelled? Was the command of Christ not irresistible?

Wrote Paul:

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Rom. 6: 16-18)

Jason teaches that there are many who have been "made free from sin," or justified, who have never obeyed the gospel, or "that form of doctrine." Interesting also is the fact that, in the Greek, the obedience is passive - "obeyed that form of doctrine into which you were delivered." Passive obedience!

Paul said a man is not made free from sin until he has believed the gospel, but Jason and the Hardshells would disagree with Paul and affirm that a man is saved, justified, and born again, before faith and conversion. Paul says sinners "believe UNTO righteousness." Hardshells say that sinners believe because of an already possessed righteousness.

"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5: 9)

"All them that obey him" - who are they? Just some of the saved or all of them? Just a few of the elect, or all of them? Jason reads this verse and says - "he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him, yes, but he is also the author of the eternal salvation for many who do not obey him."

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." (I Peter 1: 22)

Soul purification by obedience to the gospel? Soul purification in the context of being "born again"? (vs. 23) Also, does Paul not say that this obedience to the gospel is "through the Spirit"?

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (I Peter 4: 17)

What did Peter believe would be the "end" or destiny of those who "obey not the gospel"? Did he believe like Jason that many of them will be saved in heaven nonetheless?

Here is what John Gill said about it:

"what shall the end of such be? in this world wrath came upon them to the uttermost, ruin upon their nation, city, and temple; and in the world to come everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and eternal vengeance in flames of fire."

"Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD." (Eze. 37: 4)

God told Ezekiel to command the dead bones to "hear." Thus, the hearing of the preaching of the word was obedience to a command.

"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: 27)

These verses teach sovereign irresistible grace in the work of saving sinners through the new covenant. God says, in covenant promise, "I will," and the effect is "they shall." God effects all the items named in the text. Do any have God's "spirit"? Then they can thank God for it, the one who graciously promised to give it to him before the world began. Do any walk in the statutes of the Lord, according to the gospel? Then God is the "cause" of it. Do any keep God's word? Then God is the reason. If these verses do not show that the obedience of the people of God is wrought in them efficaciously by God, then none could. Will Jason not give God all the credit for his obedience or will he take a measure of credit for himself?

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts..." (Psa. 65: 4)

A man "approaches" God. Does God not command it? Does he not cause it in the one he has chosen? Is approaching God not obedience?

"LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isaiah 26: 12)

Jason cannot affirm what these words affirm. They give God all the credit for the good deeds, for all the obedience, of his people.

"Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee." (Psa. 66: 3)

Do these words not say that God will effectually cause his enemies to submit (or obey)?

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10)

Like Isaiah, does not Paul also give credit to God and his grace and power for all his obedience?

Jason believes that all the obedience of God's elect, including their sanctification, is "synergistic," but their regeneration is monergistic. Will our obedience in glory be synergistic? Will it be possible for some not to obey? Why not? Will there be any "obedience" in glory if God has so fixed our nature that it cannot help but obey?

Jesus said "the sheep follow him: for they know his voice." (vs. 4)

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (vs. 14)

Is the word "know" not a "cognitive" word? If I said - "that is my wife's voice," would that not imply that I knew her? Two things about those who are designated as God's "sheep." First, they know Christ. That is, they recognize him, being knowledgeable of him. Second, they "know his voice." How can this be a non-cognitive, unconscious knowing? Further, Jason would argue that there are many sheep (elect and regenerate ones) who do not know the voice of Christ and do not know his person and character.

"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." (vs. 9)

Jesus is talking about the salvation of the sheep, the sheep being identified as they who know Christ, who know and follow his voice. Is it proper to say that the sheep "obey" the voice of the shepherd? Do they not do this automatically, by habit, and instinctively? When we say that the sheep "recognize" the shepherd and his voice, does the word (concept) or recognition involve cognition?

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (vs. 26-28)

Jason thinks his view about the voice of Christ, in John 10, being the gospel, frees him from difficulty, but it does not. Jesus said that his sheep, all of them, would hear his voice, come to him, and follow him. But, does Jason believe that all the sheep will hear and believe the gospel?

Jason wrote:

"It is not the life-giving voice of the Son of God that the Jewish leaders fail to hear, for, like Lazarus, they would have been resurrected to new life effectually and immediately if they were addressed thusly."

Christ's has two voices now? One that is life-giving and one that is not? This is typical Hardshell hermeneutics. When they cannot reconcile scripture with their Hardshell heresies, they give dual meanings to words. They do this with salvation, saying that there is an eternal salvation and there is a time salvation. They do this with perish, saying there is eternal perishing and temporal perishing. They do this with faith, saying there are two kinds of faith, one that is cognitive and one that is a kind of "seed" that is latent in a person.

Yes, the non-elect hear the voice of Christ, but not to salvation. The sheep (elect) hear it and believe it. Why the difference? It is the election that makes the difference. (I Cor. 4: 7) The purpose of God is what makes the difference.

Jason wrote:

"It is perfectly evident from the text that it is the message and ministry of Jesus that the Jewish leaders failed to believe, as Jesus refers to His earthly ministry that the evil Jews witnesseed (vs. 25). This unbelief in the words and teaching of Christ marked the Jewish leaders as unregenerate men, just as belief in the words and teaching of Christ mark those that are born again."

How did the unbelief of the Jewish leaders "mark" then as "unregenerate men"? If you admit that some regenerate men reject the gospel, then you cannot say absolutely that the unbelieving Jewish leaders were unregenerate.

Jason says that the unregenerate Jews were hearing the voice of Jesus and that this voice of Jesus was in the preaching of Jesus. Why will he not do the same with the voice of Jesus in John 5: 25-28? Most Hardshells would disagree with Jason and affirm that the voice of Christ is the same in both chapters, and that the gospel is not the vehicle for hearing the voice of Christ, in John 10. Why do they reject Jason's view? Is it not because they see the language of irresistible grace and effectual calling in the words of Jesus to the sheep? If these two factions could each give a little, and meet in the middle, they would come over to the Old Baptist position. The majority needs to accept Jason's interpretation about the voice of Christ being heard in the preaching of the gospel, and Jason and the minority need to accept the majority view that the effects of the voice speaking is an irresistible and effectual work.

Jason wants to make the experience and behavior of the sheep to be a "conversion" experience that only some of the sheep (elect) experience, rather than a "regeneration" experience that all of the sheep (elect) experience. But, Christ states universal categorical propositions in relation to the sheep, not limited ones, as Jason wants to avow. He is indeed attempting to use his "logic" to distort the text and make it harmonize with his unscriptural propositions. Who has the right to take God's universal propositions and make them limited and particular? Jesus says "my sheep," meaning all of them, "hear my voice," that is, hear my voice in the gospel, as John Gill affirmed, and as Jason himself agrees. All Jason can do is see a limited proposition that says "some of my sheep hear my voice and follow me." At least the majority view sees how the words are universal propositions, stating what is true of all members designated as in the class of "sheep."

Jason wrote:

"This passage (John 10) clearly presupposes that being born again is a necessary context for belief in the gospel. It presupposes a distinction between sonship and discipleship. The main point of Christ is that belief and trust in Christ (vs. 24) - the gospel - is the nature of sheep - those that have been regenerated."

Where in the chapter does Jesus put being born again "before" faith and conversion? Where does he separate them? Where does he imply that one can be a born again unbeliever? Yes, they are "sheep" before they are regenerated and before they believe, but the term "sheep" is not to be equated with "regenerated ones," but with "elect ones." People are chosen to salvation before they are actually saved. Interesting how Jason says that one must be spiritually alive first, in John 10, before he can know Jesus and hear his voice, but not so in John 5. In John 5 one hears the voice of Christ before he is made alive. This doesn't represent doctrinal "clarity" but a dirty window's view.

Jason wrote:

"I said doctrinal division always creates clarity in the positions of those dividing. I have not argued that every single PB member has preserved this clarity with the mental precision of Lemuel Potter. While present PB's do have clarity on the subject of immediate regeneration..."

I have already written in regard to Elder Potter. Potter's "mental precision" involved "cision," a cutting up the word of God, and a failure to "rightly divide the word of truth." Today's Hardshells have "clarity" on the subject of regeneration? I have shown how false is that statement!

Jason wrote:

"As to James 1:21, I do not exegete this passage in terms of a "timely salvation". The text is not dealing with regeneration primarily, as the Logos has already been engrafted, but the reference, "which is able to save your souls", refers to the Logos, not the accepting of it. The salvation is necessarily eternal, therefore. The volitional nature of the passage is addressed to the individual with the engrafted Logos to submit to it, and to it's converting and sanctifying direction of the perfect law of liberty of verse 25. This is my understanding of the text. Most of my previous writing on this text outside of this post (and some in this post) was a reductio ad absurdum argument of Brother Garrett's position."

Jason says that he does not interpret James 1: 21 as dealing with a "timely salvation" and yet that is exactly what he does! Why would he deny his own stated views? He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth in regard to the salvation under consideration in the passage. The context also shows that the "word" is not Jesus and Jason avoids the context. Notice the next two verses.

"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass."

These words clearly show that "the word" refers to the instruction, to the gospel teaching.

Jason wrote:

"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."

Garrett only claims, however, what the scriptures and the old Baptist confessions claim.

Jason wrote:

"What a curious question he asks, "Is not coming to life an activity on the part of the dead one?", right next to, "Does God not promise that he will cause a certain activity of heart, mind, conscience, and affections, in his elect?" Regeneration is never shown in the Scripture to be a process, so activity in relation to it on the part of man is precluded. Notice the contradiction he makes, which seems to be a theme for Garrett, if "coming to life" is an activity caused by God in the latter statement, how can it possibly be "an activity on the part of the dead one"? His "moderate Calvinism" only exists by embracing contradiction. He has to embrace this farce because he will not bend to the superior logical alternative that regeneration precedes faith and repentance, which is clearly implied all over the Bible, as in John 10:25-27."

I find Jason's logic to be twisted. And yet he speaks of his "superior logic." First, why does he deny that "coming to life" is what the dead experience, not God! Experience involves action and activity. Certainly it is God's action that causes the action of resurrection. But, how could anyone deny that resurrection or quickening is an experience that involves action? Think about the story of Ezekiel's preaching to the valley of dry, dead bones. Did those bones not have action and activity involved in their coming to life?

It may be "logical," by human wisdom, to say that regeneration precedes faith, but is it scriptural? Our Old Baptists, like the scriptures, put regeneration and faith together in the same way it puts regeneration and life together. Let me ask Jason - "does regeneration precede life"? And, "does regeneration cause life?" People like James White may avow that "regeneration precedes faith," but he will say this is true only logically, but not chronologically. Will Jason affirm that? He would be lots closer to the truth if he took White's position. Some of the Old Baptists did say that regeneration preceded faith, but they did not believe it preceded it chronologically. Other Old Baptists, the more knowledgeable ones, argued that they were concurrent and that debates over which comes logically first is unnecessary and unprofitable.

Besides, there are passages of scripture that clearly give the priority to faith. Notice these:

1) "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20: 31)

Which comes first in this passage, believing or life?

2) "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." (I Tim. 1: 16)

Does Paul say that one believes because he already has eternal life, or believes "to" it?

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5: 40)

"Coming to" Jesus, in this discourse, is equated with "believing" in Jesus. Does one "come to Jesus" because he already has "life," or that he may obtain it? To harmonize this with his Hardshellism, Jason would have to change Jesus' words to say - "and you do not have life that you might come unto me."

Jason finds it repugnant and unscriptural to view "regeneration" and spiritual "birth" as a "process," although he allows for "sanctification" to be a process. So, what if regeneration is a process? Are there any scriptures that deny that it is so? How do you define "process"? Certainly regeneration is no "process" if one thinks that it denotes what happens slowly, over a long time. I do not believe that regeneration is a "process" in this sense. Coming to life is instantaneous. But, even that which happens in a "split second" can have a process to it. A process involves a procedure, or logical stages or steps. Does Jason deny that God has a procedure? Consider also the fact that God often has a long process of preparatory work before he regenerates a soul.

Jason wrote:

"Brother Garrett goes on to claim that I espouse Arminianism in James 1:21 in supposing that accepting the engrafted Logos is contingent on the will of man. This is false because accepting the engrafted Logos in this text is in a context of gospel conversion in which the regenerated man (engrafted is in the past tense) wills in synergy with the influence of the Spirit in a process of progressive sanctification unto glorification, which presupposes regeneration. It is Brother Garrett who insists that James 1:21 refers to a "process" of regeneration in which the contradictory melding of God's effectual call and man's free will is supposedly both present and preserved. It is Garrett's contradictory embrace of both Calvinism and Arminianism that is erroneous."

Jason earlier denied that he interpreted the "salvation" of James 1 as being a Hardshell "time salvation," but here he equates the salvation with "conversion," which is all the same as "time salvation" in Hardshell jargon.

Jason argues for monergism in regard to "regeneration" but for synergism in regard to "sanctification." This, however, is grossly inconsistent and contradictory. Is God not the author of both? Does Jason deny that God will progressively sanctify his regenerated people effectually? Does Jason believe that some of the regenerated will fail to progress in holiness?

Jason wrote:

"I was certainly not advocating that regeneration is primarily in view in James 1:21. What I argued is that for Garrett, who believes regeneration is primarily in view in this text, he is forced to concede an Arminian view of free will, which he seems to affirm as co-existent with the effectual call of God. However, this is a blatant contradiction as to the cause of regeneration."

I need not repeat here what I have shown before. But, again, Jason contradicts himself by again denying that regeneration or eternal salvation is under consideration, but then has the nerve to say that the sees the salvation, in the text, as eternal, and not as a time salvation.

Also, I never affirmed an Arminian view of free will in regard to the passage, but it was shown that Jason is the guilty one in that regard.

Jason then cited me and responded:

"Let us ask Jason - "do you interpret all passages dealing with revelation of Christ to a sinner as unconnected with regeneration?"

They are not unconnected with regeneration in the sense that in this gospel era since the New Testament the revelation of the gospel elucidates the fundmental trust in God imparted in the new birth, so such revelation always presupposes regeneration, showing that gospel revelation is fully consistent and the natural extension of sonship."

"Fundamental trust in God" is "imparted in the new birth"? In this statement Jason is again contradicting his own self, speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Can one have fundamental trust in God apart from cognition? Is this the one true God? Jesus Christ? How did they get this trust in God in the new birth? Apart from hearing the gospel? Can a man trust in a person he knows nothing about?

Jason said:

"Brother Garrett is incorrect. If Primitive Baptist individuals have said that Phil. 2:13 refers to regeneration, they are incorrect."

Notice how Garrett's understanding of James 1:21 makes the volitional nature of the text illusory. "Those that end up damned refuse the gospel, as they were not effectually worked on by God, and the elect are irresistibly drawn to accept the gospel. Garrett fails to uphold his own hermeneutical standard of embracing the "obvious" meaning of a text, which, in this case, ought to lead him to embrace Arminianism..."

The volition of the text is only "illusory" due to Jason's faulty definition of "volition." Jason denies that volition can be God caused. He says that if God cause one to choose, then there was no choice at all. But, this is both illogical and against scripture. I have already cited Phil. 2: 13 where Paul says that God works in his people "to will," or "to choose."

I cited I Thess. 1: 4, 5 and made some observations and Jason then responded with this commentary.

"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 4, 5)

It denotes the utter inconsistency of affirming sonship without discipleship for those sons under the sound of the gospel, but to say that effectual calling extends to discipleship makes it difficult to understand how Peter could deny Christ or for serious disobedience in the children of God. David and Samson had grievous sins that make it difficult to harmonize to an irresistable grace in the lives of children of God."

Where is the difficulty but in Jason's own mind? Did not Paul say - "But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me"? Did I not cite Isaiah 26: 12 - "for thou also hast wrought all our works in us"? Let me ask Jason - "why does one of God's people live obediently to the Lord and another does not?" What was Paul's answer? See I Cor. 4: 7 for his answer.

Jason wrote:

Given the context is the gospel era of the New Testament, many individuals were/are regenerated under the sound of the gospel (or with a great deal of intellectual knowledge of the gospel), or like Paul - in the face of Jesus Christ. In this gospel era, knowledge of the gospel is readily accessible to the regenerate. Such a text as Ephes. 1:19, 20 does not prove that gospel knowledge is to be equated with the principle of grace given in regeneration; what it proves is that to a man like Paul who already had extensive knowledge in an unregenerate state, the missing component was trust in Christ, not knowledge of Christ."

Did Paul know that Jesus Christ was Lord prior to his Damascus road experience? He may have had some knowledge of Christ and the gospel, but he did not have the revelation that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God," the kind Peter had and which Christ said had been revealed to him by the Father. What did the "exceeding greatness of his power" accomplish? Was it not to make the elect into believers in Jesus? Further, does Paul not call this a being "quickened" from spiritual death? (2: 1)

Jason wrote:

"I do see the salvation as eternal. (James 1: 18) The volitional nature of submitting to the direction of the engrafted Logos leads to being blessed on this earth in that work, according to James 1:25. Surely that is a timely blessing. It is obvious to question whether the forgetful hearer ever had the Logos engrafted, as James states that such a one deceives himself (vs. 22)."

The salvation is both "eternal" and "timely"? Jason has already identified the experience of salvation, in the passage, as dealing with "conversion," and not with regeneration, so why is he saying it is "eternal" salvation?

Jason wrote:

"This is humorous exegesis. The context of Matt. 23:15 is "obviously" a condemnation of the Jewish religious leaders. This text is not in a contextual flow that justifies the belief that the "hindering" of verse 13 is necessarily eternal. And if it is, how can individuals enter eternal salvation in part only to be finally hindered by the Jewish leaders? This is highly problematic outside of an Arminian system of access into eternity by free will. Eternal salvation cannot logically be understood to be had in part, as the text alludes, unless we make the possession of it contingent on the will of man. The fact remains that Garrett twists the intuitive meaning of this text to harmonize with Calvinistic presuppositions - a method of hermeneutics of which he accuses Primitive Baptists."

I do not know what Jason is talking about when he mentions "entering salvation in part." But, I have clearly shown that being made into a "two fold more child of Hell" demonstrates that the salvation and damnation are eternal. Not being able to enter the kingdom of God speaks of eternal doom. Jesus asked the unbelievers - "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Jason does not want to say this means that they were eternally lost? Yet, ironically, he decries the historical problems with universalism and no-hellism among his people?

I cited this verse:

""For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)

I then made these comments:

"Jesus, in fulfillment of the moral law, loved all men, so the Father is also said to love all men. We may substitute the word "lover" in the place of "saviour" and say that "God is the lover of all men, specially of those that believe (elect).""

Jason responded by saying:

"The Greek word for 'Saviour' in this text is 'soter', which obviously means deliverer, not 'lover'. Does Brother Garrett deny limited atonement? The reference of "all men" refers to kinds of men, not each individual man. If Christ loved all men in a covenant of creation sense it would go without saying that he loved the rich, young ruler. The fact that it is stated that he 'loved' him implies a distinctive love - a love by virtue of the covenant of creation would be redundant and manifest. This line of reasoning preserves the natural impression of the text; whereas, Brother Garrett's is counter-intuitive - a position he must advocate because he cannot accept the "plain declarations of Scripture".

I know that the word "soter" denotes "savior." That was not the point! The point was to borrow the language of Paul relative to what is general and what is special. Does Jason deny that God, in any sense, loves all men? That Christ was under obligation to love his neighbor as himself?

About Christ loving the rich young ruler who rejected following him, Jason thinks this means that he will be saved in spite of his refusing to believe in Jesus!