Does David Pyles Agree?

Does David Pyles agree with Jason?  That the elect who hear the gospel will believe it?  Are those who are preaching this being well received by today's Hardshells?  Does he agree with Jason that the split with the Absoluters should not have occurred?  Again, what will today's Hardshells think of that?

Jason mentioned "Gill's teaching a "pre-faith" regeneration."  This will be the last time that I say anything about Gill on the subject of regeneration.  All that needs to be said has been said. 

First, Gill did teach that the word "regenerated" may, in a narrow and theological sense, be applied to a person before he believes, and before he is quickened, and before he is born again, and before he receives the Spirit, and this has never been the key issue.  It has been allowed all along that men like Andrew Fuller taught such a kind of immediate regeneration.  But, these taught regeneration before faith in the same sense that "Reformed Baptists," such as Dr. James White, do in our time.  But, as I have repeatedly said, they all said that they mean that regeneration is logically before, not chronologically before, faith.  They did not divorce faith and regeneration, but taught that regeneration instantly produced faith. 

Gill and Fuller taught that regeneration, or the new birth, or the quickening, did not take place until one was regenerated in the general biblical sense, the broadly defined sense.  Further, the founding fathers of Hardshellism taught the same thing, with but one exception.  They put a "gap in time" between regeneration and birth.  Today's Hardshells go much farther than their own founders when they say that most of the elect will not come to the birth of conversion, will not come to faith in Christ. 

I have proven all I need to prove from Dr. Gill.  Gill always affirmed that being regenerated was accomplished by the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, by the gospel, and that it is by the preaching of the gospel that dead sinners are quickened into divine life.  He always taught that the verses dealing with being "begotten of God" was accomplished by the gospel.  Not until the Hardshells acknowledge what Gill taught will they have any legitimate claims on being "Primitive" Baptists. 

Jason wrote:

"Gill argues strict regeneration is taught in 1 John 3:9 as a direct reference and argues that 2 Timothy 2:13 defends the idea of unbelief in the saints as in Peter..."

However, Gill actually wrote this about that passage:

"for his seed remaineth in him; not the word of God, or the Gospel, though that is a seed which is sown by the ministers of it, and blessed by God, and by which he regenerates his people; and which having a place in their hearts, becomes the ingrafted word, and there abides, nor can it be rooted out; where it powerfully teaches to avoid sin, is an antidote against it, and a preservative from it: nor the Holy Spirit of God, though he is the author of the new birth..."

Gill equates "regeneration" in this passage with "the new birth."  That is clear.  This shows that he is dealing with regeneration broadly defined, for he never associated the new birth with immediate or narrowly defined regeneration.  In fact, in all the passages dealing with regeneration or the new birth, Gill sees the regeneration as the mediate change called being "begotten" of God, or a being "quickened" by God.

"because he is born of God: for that which is born of God in him, does, under the influence of the Spirit, power, and grace of God, preserve him from the temptations of Satan, the pollutions of the world, and the corruptions of his own heart; see 1Jo 5:18; which the Vulgate Latin version there renders, "the generation of God", meaning regeneration, or that which is born of God..."

Again, notice that Gill equates "regeneration" with being "born of God," just as he did with being "quickened."  Gill regularly affirmed that being regenerated, or born of God, or quickened, was by means of the gospel.

Much has been said on the "faith" of God's elect, or that faith that all the elect are given in their regeneration, quickening, or rebirth.  This was what was repeatedly stated by Hardshells in the 19th century, and by many of them throughout the 20th century, but by only few today.  They have traditionally said - "all the elect are given faith in regeneration."   But, before we discuss the faith of God's elect, the kind of faith given in regeneration, let us observe some things that Gill said about faith in his Body of Divinity.

On saving faith, Dr. Gill wrote:

"...certain it is that salvation is promised to faith, and connected with it, "He that believes shall be saved", and is what faith issues in; true believers receive "the end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls" (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 1:9), and this is the faith that is to be treated of; and next will be considered,

Secondly, God the Son is the object of faith...his miracles, were written by the evangelists, "that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing, they might have life through his name" (John 20:31)...Knowledge of Christ is necessary to the exercise of faith on him, for "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" and if they have not so much as heard of him, they cannot know him, and consequently cannot exercise faith upon him; and "How shall they hear without a preacher" to make him known unto them? (Rom. 10:14)."

These words of Dr. Gill uproot Hardshellism!  First, he does not define the "faith" that saves as being non-cognitive, as does Jason.  He does not even say - "unless Paul is talking about a non-cognitive faith."  When Gill thought that two or more interpretations of certain passages were possible, and which he could not say for sure which was the original intent of the writer, he would say it may mean this, or it may mean that, or say it means this, "unless" he means that.  But, here Paul gives only one possible interpretation.  It is this;  The "faith" that saves is the faith that is cognitive, and that cannot be divorced from knowledge. 

Gill also wrote:

"Hence knowledge being so requisite to faith, and included in it, faith is sometimes expressed by it (Isa. 53:11; John 17:3), both in spiritual knowledge and special faith, eternal life is begun, and with which it is connected; and so knowledge and faith are joined together as inseparable companions, and as expressive of the same thing..."

Notice that Gill does not say that a certain kind of faith is cognitive and has knowledge, but says "faith," denoting one kind.  Faith was never given a Hardshell definition by the new testament writers, and not by Dr. Gill.  Hardshells often speak of the faith that is given in regeneration as being non-cognitive and without knowledge.  And, they cannot show from scripture how their definition of a non-cognitive and ignorant faith is taught and described.  Gill says that faith and faith knowledge are necessary for being saved.  Again, it is Hardshellism uprooted.  Gill does not say "saving knowledge is only a necessary ingredient to this kind of faith, but is not necessary to another kind of faith."

Jason wrote:

"Gill used 2 Timothy 2:13, interpreted as I interpret it, to support his view of Eternal Justification!"

So?  How is his view on eternal justification a contradiction to his view on regeneration and saving faith? 

Does Gill contradict himself on infants?  Perhaps.  But, rather than indict him on the charge of being "inconsistent" or "contradictory," I would rather seek to see how he may be interpreted so as not to be thought of as inconsistent.  Jason wants to argue this proposition - "since Gill taught that justification did not require faith, therefore he must have believed that regeneration, rebirth, and quickening, likewise do not require faith."  But, the proposition is false.

I have had to correct Jason more than once on the words "on the bases of," and other similar expressions in the bible and in the writings of Dr. Gill.  Those Baptists who have believed in means in being born of God, like Dr. Gill and the Hardshell founding fathers, would never say that "faith" was ever "the basis of" justification, regeneration, or salvation.  They did all say that faith was the "means," the way in which justification, regeneration, and salvation, are "received."  All were lost who did not "receive" or "accept" the atonement, this wrought out justification and salvation.  Gill always stated that faith is like the hand that obtains atonement and justification.  No reception, then no justification or salvation.

Jason keeps wanting to ask, basically, is this - "how much faith (belief) must one have to be initially saved?"  And then, "what if this amount of faith decreases?  will salvation be lost?"  But, he ought rather to be searching the scriptures, and the writings of Dr. Gill, for answers to these questions, for they answer them clearly. 

When Paul said that people are "reconciled" to God only "if you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel," Jason responds to the apostle by crying - "how much of the gospel do they need to continue in?"  Jason wants me to be minutely precise on what is included in persevering "in the faith."  He would have wanted Paul to be more exact than he was!  Had Jason been present when the apostle John said that those who do not "abide in the doctrine of Christ" are they who "have not God," he would have asked the apostle - "how much belief in the doctrine of Christ must one abide in to have God?"  Jason wants either John, Paul, or me to be more precise.  And why?  So he can make the argument that ends with this conclusion - "so non-cognitive, non-knowledge faith, is taught in scripture"?    Jason cannot produce scripture that plainly teaches his idea about a faith that has no knowledge, or recognition of truth, so he tries to "deduce" proof for it from passages of scripture.  Further, they are not even valid deductions.

The apostle Peter's experience of denying Christ has been discussed in the context of the question of how much belief must one have to be initially saved, or regenerated, and on the kind and extent of unbelief in those who have already become believers in Christ.  But, both the scriptures and Gill answer these questions.  But, the case of Peter's being temporarily overcome by unbelief offers no comfort to Hardshells.  Jason says that Peter's fall proves that you don't have to believe in Jesus in order to be saved!  What a leap!

Jason wrote:

"Incidentally, does Garrett believe Paul thinks Peter is damned for not obeying the gospel here, as I've asked Garrett before? Garrett is adamant that Paul makes the categorical assertion that all of those that do not obey shall be damned in 2 Thess. 1:7-9. Garrett would not allow that Paul means in relation to what is characteristic of one's overall life. So it logically follows without possibility of the contrary that Peter was eternally damned."

No, Paul always recognized Peter as a "believer."  Even when we fall in unbelief, we are still believers, for the falls we have in unbelief, concern not the fundamental propositions of the gospel, but lessor areas of doctrine.  It depends on the kind of "disobedience," the kind of "unbelief."  Obviously!  Peter's kind of unbelief and disobedience was not anything near the kind of unbelief and disobedience in unsaved people, people who are always styled as "heathen" or "unbelievers." 

Garrett was correct about II Thess. 1: 7-9 and showed how Jason does not know the difference between a universal categorical proposition and a limited one.  Garrett has also referred to II Thess. 2: 12 where Paul said - "that they ALL might be damned who believed not the truth..."  How is that not universal?  He also spoke of those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."  (vs. 11) 

Jason continues to rely upon his logic for obtaining biblical propositions of truth rather than upon plain unequivocal language.  Why cannot he not just find passages which say "faith in Christ is not necessary to be saved"?  He cannot find this express Hardshell proposition, so tries to create the proposition by logical deduction.  Further, his logical deduction, which avows that faith in Christ is not necessary to be eternally saved, is against plain declarations of scripture that say that all those who do not believe in Christ will be eternally damned. 

Jason said:

"Peter's unbelief in the context of Matt. 16:22 was not simply a lack of trust in Jesus, it was a lack of correct knowledge of the gospel. He did not see the necessity of Christ's death - that's a core aspect of the gospel. What, then, was the object of Peter's faith at this time? Was it the parts of the gospel he did understand? If that's so, why does Garrett deny that some of the Gnostic professed believers may have been born again, seeing as they denied orthodoxy in regard to the resurrection, but still claimed Jesus Christ for salvation? Could they not, like Peter, be born again in affirming Christ as the son of God, but not see the logical incompatibility of the latter with the former, just as Peter?"

This type of rhetorical questioning is typical of both the Campbellite and the Hardshell cults.  After a clear and express statement of scripture is made, these cultists will begin with their "but, if that is true, then..."  Rather than accepting what is clear and plain, and without ambiguity, they begin to manifest their resistance to it with such rhetoricals.  Many of Jason's rhetoricals could easily be addressed to the biblical writers themselves, for I have only been saying what is expressly stated, and not relying upon deductions and inferences for my propositions, as does Jason and his Hardshell brethren.  I don't need to deal with all this "what if" type of rhetoricals.  They are the kind that one would expect from those who resist the Holy Spirit by not accepting what is plainly stated, and by relying upon human logic for the ascertaining of truth propositions.   Let us quit dealing in speculating and deal with what is plainly declared in holy scripture.  

Jason states that he has "indicated in this post the logical problems with his position that arise once you admit any disbelief in children of God. I fully agree and have always agreed with him that a pervasive unbelief of revelation in regenerates under the sound of the gospel is not taught in the New Testament." 

Notice again Jason's reference to "logical problems."  If he would quite trying to "deduce" his faith from scripture, and just accept the biblical propositions as plainly stated and given, then he might come further towards the genuine old Baptist faith.  "ANY disbelief"?  Have I not always asserted that no true believer can lose that basic faith that Christ is Savior and Lord and that all hope of salvation is only in and by him?  I have ever affirmed, as did Dr. Gill, that some kind of unbelief and doubt are possible for the elect, but they will nevertheless still be they who "continue in the gospel" and "abide in the doctrine of Christ."  Besides, the unbelief of the Lord's people is temporary and overcome, and their fallings providentially used to strengthen faith and to further instruct in righteousness.

Jason says that "pervasive unbelief of revelation" is "not taught in the New Testament."  But, suppose we deal with him with our own rhetoricals?  What do you mean by "pervasive unbelief"?  How pervasive can it be, or not be?   Is being a heathen or pagan in belief part of the definition of "pervasive unbelief"?

Jason wrote:

"Without cognitive ability, how is the faith's object of knowledge in these infants understood? Garrett seems to believe Gill is implicitly committed to viewing the infants as imbued with cognitive ability. If this were true, would not this cognitive ability necessarily be permanent, as their faith would depend on it? It is entirely problematic, accordingly, why some infants, at least, once they mature to speaking age, are not and were not proclaiming the name of Christ in heathen lands."

Simple answer!  The cognitive ability of John the Baptist, while in his mother's womb, was supernatural, not what was natural!  Further, we are not talking about infants being regenerated but who do not die in infancy.  We are not talking about someone who was regenerated in infancy and yet grew up into children or adults.  We are talking about those who die in infancy, who must have been regenerated, if we believe that any or all of them go to heaven.  John Gill, like those who wrote the London Confession of 1689, taught that the regeneration of infants was God's extraordinary way of regenerating men.   I also showed that many of them, including Gill, still did not divorce the experience of regeneration from coming to know and believe in Christ, or from repentance, or from the application of gospel truth to the heart and mind, affirming that God did this apart from human gospel preachers.

Jason wrote:

"In any case, I deny that Gill is affirming that kind of absurdity. Gill is not dealing with infants any longer in this passage when he states, "and enable them to exercise it on the proper object, and cause them secretly to call upon the name of the Lord, with groans which cannot be uttered", for Gill moved from referring to infants to those, "also of such persons...""

Wrong!  He had not excluded infants and this is evident from his use of the word "also" in "also of such persons."  Does Gill not say that the mentally incompetent may still be "enabled" by omnipotence to "exercise" faith in Christ and to call upon his name?  If you allow that God can do this with the mentally incompetent, then why not with infants?

In closing, let me repeat that I will not be responding any further to what Jason may say about Gill.  The case rests with the readers.  I am satisfied in what I have shown from Dr. Gill.  I am satisfied that what Gill taught on means in salvation is opposed to Hardshellism.

Let me suggest that Jason begin giving us clear statements of scripture, rather than his logical deductions, for Hardshell propositions.