"Two Heads"

Under a posting - "Two Heads Are Better Than One?" - Hardshell apologist Jason Brown writes about Elder Fralick and myself:

"Kevin Fralick has joined Stephen Garrett in a new blog entitled, "Old Baptist", in an effort to prove that all Baptists historically believed that the new birth is normally effected by God through the gospel as preached by men. Primitive Baptists have claimed the title of "Old Baptists" historically, but have denied that God effects regeneration through the gospel."

Yes, and brother Kevin and I, together with several others who are in support of our efforts, want to see the counter evidence from Jason and the Hardshells about their beliefs being the same as the first Baptists of the old confessions. Brother Kevin and I represent the views of the real "Old Baptists."

Jason wrote:

"By this I mean that the new birth is not clearly shown in the Scripture to be effected by the preached gospel. One might assume from such texts as James 1:18, 1 Corinthians 4:15, or 1 Peter 1:23 that the new birth can be effected by the preaching of the gospel, but this would not prove that it normally is."

Jason is a rebel against the plain teachings of scripture, a sign of his cult status. The passages mentioned could not be any clearer about how God begets by the gospel. Were Peter, James, and Paul not stating how God begets sinners? How God did it normally, regularly, universally? Where is Jason's authority for affirming that these writers are only saying that some were begotten by the gospel? Is Jason admitting that these passages teach that the early Christians were begotten by the gospel? Why won't Jason simply deal with the passages themselves?

Jason wrote:

"Indeed, it can hardly be established that the first two texts refer to the new birth at all; a conversion into gospel truth akin to the one mentioned in Luke 22:31-32 might be in view in regard to James 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 4:15. It seems highly unlikely to suppose that Peter was unregenerate in Luke 22:31-32, as the passage indicates that Peter already possessed faith."

Well, at least, here, Jason does make an attempt to address the passages in question! But, does he give any exegesis of the passages? No, but rather simply denies that they teach that God begets through the gospel! Then he falls back upon the use of his human reason and says "it seems higly unlikely to suppose"! He then speaks of Luke 22 where Jesus addresses Peter as though he was not yet "converted," yet for what reason I cannot discern. How does the reference to Peter's need of "conversion" explain the passages teaching means?

Certainly Peter was regenerated in Luke 22, though he still needed to be "converted." But, this "conversion" is not that which is synonymous with regeneration. The word "converted" generally connects with regeneration, but not always. The word means to "change" one's thinking and behavior, and certainly regeneration changes one's thinking and behavior, but there is still need for conversion in the lives of God's regenerated people. James 5: 19, 20 demonstrates this. James speaks of "converting" a "brother" from the "error of his ways" and "saving (preserving) a soul from death."

Jason wrote:

"1 Peter 1:23 can be understood as suggesting a division between the word of God proper and the gospel, rather than the notion that the text suggests we are born again by the word of God, which is the gospel. The gospel is revelation of the word of God, and it is by the word of God proper that the elect are born again. The text seems to be more clearly understood making this distinction."

When Peter says - "and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you," he simply is saying "this is the message which was announced to you by the gospel." So, how does this destroy Peter's affirmation that God's elect are "born again by the incorruptible word"?

What is "the word of God proper"? Is it not the message about Jesus and God's plan of salvation? Is this word different from "the truth" (vs. 22)? Peter said, earlier in the chapter, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (vs. 9) Faith in what? Is it not the revelation of God pertaining to Christ and salvation, or to the message of the gospel? Faith in this "word of God"? Is this incorruptible word the same as "the gospel" (vs. 12)? When Peter says, a few verses later, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" (2: 3), what "word" is under consideration? Is not "THE word" the same word of I Peter 1: 23?

Jason wrote:

"A defense of the idea that regeneration is effected by God alone through the Holy Spirit outside of means is necessary to explain how all the elect inherit eternal life."

Hardshellism is to be believed, according to Jason, because it is a logical "neccessity" to harmonize the scriptures on this matter! Laughable! I have shown this to be false in my writings.

Jason wrote:

"Presuming that a portion of the elect of God were/are physically incapable of hearing the gospel as preached by man, an explanation that harmonizes spiritual birth with those that are capable of hearing the preached gospel is preferable as the simplest explanation. One might suppose that God could grant temporary mental powers to the mentally incompetent elect; however, if faith is linked to mental awareness, it would seem that all parts of salvation would require it. How could sanctification occur without the mental awareness? This alternative is not logically preferable, if we are concerned with parsimony."

Jason shows himself to be in a quagmire, on a slippery slope himself. His problem is with his use of human reason in trying to understand the things of God! At first he argues that regeneration cannot be on a mental or conscious level because some are regenerated who have no mental or conscious life and yet, at other times, is forced to see regeneration as incorporating revelation, or being taught something by God. He argues, on the one hand, that the infant and the idiot prove his hardshellism, and then, on the other hand, says that God can give mental power to such characters! He speaks of what is "logically preferable"! Was it logical or reasonable for God to tell Ezekiel to preach to dead dry bones in order that they might live?

Jason wrote:

"We are at liberty to posit such an explanation because the Bible is not clear about how God saves the mentally incompetent, or the unborn."

If God is "not clear" on how infants and idiots are saved, then why is Jason building his entire soteriology upon their cases? Incredible! He affirms that he is "at liberty" to twist scripture on the subject. He is "at liberty" to speak where the bible is silent.

Jason wrote:

"We know that the amount of individuals that have lived on the earth who possessed competent mental function only represents a fraction of the total human race. There have been far more individuals who died in infancy or before they were born, not to mention those who continued to live without mental competence, than individuals who developed to a state of mental competence."

Again, using human logic! Yet, if Jason looks at the case of John the Baptist, who the Hardshells affirm was born again while in his mother's womb, John the Baptist was given mental powers to believe the gospel!

Jason, in conclusion, wrote:

"So, if it truly is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed (Romans 4:16), the doctrine of Justification must extend to the infant or the mentally incompetent elect the same as it would to anyone, which is by the gift in regeneration of the root of faith: trust in God."

The key words in the above is "the same as." Rather than dealing with what scripture says on the issue, Jason uses logical argumentation founded on the case of infants and idiots, and yet he has not proven from scripture that these characters are not begotten by the gospel, and who do not have revelation of Jesus in their hearts and minds. 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?